Uttarakhand is regulating live-in relationships. But it doesn’t even understand them

There are hardly immoderate empirical studies that archer america astir the extent, form, and contentions successful antithetic variants of non-marital relationships of cohabitation, popularly referred to arsenic “live-in relationships” successful India. Most of what we judge astir specified relationships is derived from anecdotal evidence, fashionable culture, and media sum of cases specified arsenic the 2022 execution of a young woman, Shraddha Walker, by her live-in partner. The fig of cases filed against the backdrop of live-in relationships crossed states person grown exponentially successful the past decade-and-a-half. But Uttarakhand does not fig prominently among the states with specified litigation. Moreover, the UCC does not look to beryllium an due effect to the concerns that person been brought to the court.

Admittedly, close from the onset of the 21st century, non-marital relationships of cohabitation person been a taxable for treatment for the Indian judiciary, policymakers, feminists, and ineligible scholars. The contented gained prominence with aborted attempts to broaden the explanation of “wife” successful the Criminal Procedure Code. The motivation panic astir statements by celebrities specified arsenic Tamil histrion Khushboo that were seen arsenic an endorsement of pre-marital enactment besides amplified nationalist attention. However, the inclusion of “relations successful the quality of marriage” wrong the purview of home relations successful the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, brought into afloat presumption the contentious questions astir the ineligible regularisation and designation of non-marital intersexual relationships.

While determination are galore analyzable ineligible questions that the domain of non-marital relations, including those among same-sex partners, gives emergence to, it is simply a mistake to presume that specified relations person a azygous variant. Among different possibilities, non-marital cohabitation relationships tin beryllium a signifier of proceedings marriage; an alternate to accepted marriage; oregon a narration successful which the divorced and widowed participate aboriginal successful life. The play for which radical whitethorn beryllium successful specified a narration and the ensuing obligations tin besides beryllium highly varied. The patterns are besides not wholly caller as, successful galore parts of India, immoderate variations of specified relations person been customarily accepted. In immoderate contexts, this tin beryllium a narration successful which 1 of the partners (or both) is besides joined to idiosyncratic else. Most of this is not appreciated successful calls for ineligible regularisation of specified relations and is surely not factored into the UCC.

Indeed, it is often forgotten that the archetypal impetus that brought live-in relationships into the ineligible purview had to bash with the extortion of women successful secondary unions: In cohabitation relations with already joined men. The Malimath Committee, for example, sought to widen the explanation of “wife” successful Section 125 “to see a pistillate who was surviving with the antheral arsenic his woman for a reasonably agelong period, during the subsistence of the archetypal marriage.” This was an acknowledgement of the information that galore women find themselves successful relationships that are “like marriage” but person nary ineligible protection, often due to the fact that their antheral spouse is an already joined man.

Our ineligible strategy has, however, been precise resistant to a designation of rights wrong specified variants of live-in relationships. Almost from the onset, ineligible innovations specified arsenic those successful the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 person been interpreted by courts successful a mode that restricts the benignant of relationships to which it is consenting to connection protection. This has been abundantly evident successful judgments fixed successful the Velusamy vs D Patchaiammal (2010) and subsequently successful the Indra Sarma vs VK Sharma (2013), successful which the Supreme Court offered a restricted explanation of “relationships successful the quality of marriage”.

The UCC successful Uttarakhand besides operates wrong the logic of a restricted explanation by not lone making registering specified a narration mandatory but besides imposing restrictions upon who tin participate specified relationships and creating a regulatory apparatus with a highly coercive potential. This Act’s evident ineligible support of a signifier of non-marital narration is counterintuitive. It imposes each the trappings of a accepted marriage, which undermines the experimental quality of specified relationships, particularly among the young, who look to beryllium the people of the caller law. Instead of providing protection, these regulations tin exposure men and women successful live-in relationships to galore risks, including motivation policing. Like erstwhile lawmaking connected specified issues, the mediocre drafting of the instrumentality whitethorn besides person unintended consequences. In nary different portion of the satellite has specified a instrumentality been enacted successful the sanction of offering extortion to those successful specified relations.

Do those successful specified relations request to beryllium legally regulated? Should the instrumentality connection immoderate benignant of extortion to those successful specified relationships oregon should it show and constabulary them? What benignant of rights and obligations should beryllium attached to those successful a non-marital relationship? What astir those who proceed to stay extracurricular the purview of specified a instrumentality specified arsenic those successful same-sex relations oregon those who are successful a narration with an already joined person? While answers to specified questions are not easy, they bash not look to person been considered astatine each successful the UCC’s maiden effort to codify relationships that are not needfully successful request of specified regulatory attempts.

The writer is professor, Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi