Uttarakhand News : HC Questions Opposition to Regulating Live-In Relationships

The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday stated that privacy concerns cannot come at the cost of an individual’s dignity, especially when it involves a child born out of a live-in relationship. The court questioned what was wrong with regulating live-in relationships, emphasizing the consequences such relationships might have on individuals, particularly children.

A bench headed by Chief Justice G. Narendra made these remarks while hearing a petition challenging provisions of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Act, 2024, particularly those related to live-in relationships. The petition was filed by Almasuddin Siddiqui through his counsel Kartikeya Hari Gupta. The petition also challenged the list of prohibited relationships under the UCC, arguing that it interferes with an individual's religious right to marry and criminalizes such unions.

Solicitor General Defends the Law

During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Uttarakhand and central governments, sought six weeks’ time to file a response. The Chief Justice specifically asked for justification of Section 387(1) of the law, which mandates the registration of live-in relationships and prescribes a penalty of three months’ imprisonment, a ₹10,000 fine, or both for failure to comply.

Defending the law, Mehta responded, “We will submit our justification. There is a rationale behind this provision. A study has shown that many women in live-in relationships end up abandoned and unprotected.”

Live-In Relationships Need Regulation: Chief Justice

In his observations, Chief Justice G. Narendra highlighted the risks associated with unregulated live-in relationships.

"What happens if a live-in relationship breaks down? What happens to a child born out of such a relationship? In marriage, there is a clear concept of paternity, but in live-in relationships, there is no such framework. Can an individual’s dignity, especially that of a child, be sacrificed under the guise of privacy?" the Chief Justice asked.

The Solicitor General countered by stating that the registration of live-in relationships is a provision for women’s empowerment. However, the Chief Justice pointed out that live-in relationships are already recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He further stated that the issue is not just about women, but also about ensuring legal clarity regarding paternity and protecting children born out of such relationships.

"If registration is made mandatory, it will undoubtedly help in addressing these issues," he added.

With the court raising serious concerns about unregistered live-in relationships and the rights of children born from them, the debate over the UCC’s provisions continues to gain momentum. The case is now pending further submissions from the government.