The Uttarakhand Government recently made history by passing a Uniform Civil Code Bill in the State Assembly on the 6th of February. This groundbreaking bill includes provisions for recognizing Live-in Relationships for the first time in India. It is important to note that while this statute will not cover the entire country, it applies only to residents of Uttarakhand or individuals who reside in Uttarakhand. It is also crucial to mention that Live-in Relationships are not illegal in India; various case laws still recognize them. This move by the Uttarakhand Government marks a significant step towards modernizing and updating civil laws to reflect the changing social landscape in India.

What Is Live-In Relationship

A live-in relationship can be described as a living arrangement in which an unmarried couple resides under the same roof for an extended period. In the Indian context, the landmark case of Khusboo v Kanniammal[1] in 2010 set a significant precedent, as the Supreme Court ruled that live-in relationships are not illegal or immoral. The court emphasized that consenting adults have the right to cohabit without being married. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Indian Constitution, under Article 21[2], upholds the liberty of couples to engage in live-in relationships.

Problems With The Live-In Bill Of The Uttarakhand

1. It does not mention the time of cohabitation for the couple to fall under the category of a Live-in Relationship:
   • The recent bill enacted by the Uttarakhand government is silent on the duration of cohabitation required for a couple to be recognized as being in a Live-in Relationship. According to section 387[3] of the Bill, if Live-in Partners fail to register their relationship within one month, they could face imprisonment for up to three months. This provision implies that the government considers a relationship a Live-in Relationship after one month of cohabitation. This raises the question of how this distinction differs from a transient or casual relationship and what criteria will be used to define the nature of these relationships.
   • In legal cases concerning live-in relationships, it has been widely observed that cohabitation is typically measured in years rather than months. For instance, in the case of Badri Prasad v Dy. Director of Consolidation[4], a couple was found to have lived together for 50 years without getting married. Additionally, in the case of Himani and Anr. v State of Haryana[5], the high court ruled that simply living together for a short period does not automatically imply the existence of marital ties within a relationship.
      
2. Submitting the statement of relationship will violate the Right to Privacy under Article 21:
   • In Section 378[6] of the Bill, couples must provide a statement detailing their relationship, regardless of their residency status in Uttarakhand. This requirement raises concerns about potentially infringing upon the Right to Privacy, a fundamental aspect of Article 21[7]. It is widely acknowledged that Indian society has not entirely embraced the idea of live-in relationships. Many couples in inter-caste or inter-religious relationships often choose to keep their live-in arrangements private. However, it could be a significant deterrent for such unions if compelled to submit a formal statement regarding their relationship.
      
3. Arbitrary power given to the Registrar:
   • It should be noted that as per the provisions of the Bill, the registrar has been vested with considerable discretionary powers. By section 381(3)[8] of the Bill, the registrar is empowered to summon the couple or any other individual for verification. It is essential to question the necessity of summoning third parties when the partners are willing to reside together under the same roof.
   • Additionally, under section 381(4)(a)[9], the registrar can issue a registration certificate within 30 days. However, if the registrar fails to issue the registration certificate within the stipulated time frame, the Live-in Partner would be liable under Section 387 of the Bill. This implies that they would face repercussions for failing to fulfill the requirement of registering their relationship.
      
4. Bill is inclined toward women's safety:
   • In a live-in relationship, there is a distinct difference in the legal rights and responsibilities compared to marriage. Unlike marriage, where a permanent bond binds both individuals, either partner in a live-in relationship can leave anytime. This lack of legal commitment can lead to challenges, particularly in cases where one partner is deserted by the other.
   • An additional concern is that under section 388[10] of the Bill, only maintenance for women is addressed, while provisions for men should be mentioned. While it is a positive step to provide support for women whom their live-in partners desert, there is a risk of an increase in false claims for maintenance, similar to the misuse of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
   • As evidenced by the misuse of the Dowry Prohibition Act[11], originally intended to protect women from social evil, there have been instances where women have misused the law. This serves as a cautionary tale when considering potential loopholes and misapplications of laws that protect individuals in relationships.
      
5. No mention of the benefit of registering the Live-in Relationship:
   • The section of the Bill that addresses live-in relationships does not specify the implications of registering a live-in relationship. Will registration provide couples in a live-in relationship with rights equivalent to those of a married couple?

Laws Related To Live-In Relationship In Other Nations

United State of America
In the legal history of the United States of America (USA), there have been several significant developments in legislation regarding consensual sex and cohabitation. These changes have contributed to recognizing living together contracts and their related legal instruments, such as "prenuptial agreements."[12]

Before the 1970s, unmarried cohabitation was relatively uncommon; however, since the 1980s, it has become increasingly accepted and legalized. Several states have enacted laws allowing both heterosexual and homosexual unmarried couples to register as domestic partners. This has resulted in the institutionalization of domestic partnerships through registries, providing legal recognition and certain rights to unmarried cohabiting couples akin to those enjoyed by married partners.[13]

Various factors have contributed to the rise of cohabitation in the United States. These include dissatisfaction with traditional marriage arrangements, psychological distress arising from marital relationships, financial constraints such as high housing costs and tight budgets, and a desire among partners to spend more time together in a non-marital cohabiting arrangement to better understand each other before committing to marriage.

While no uniform federal law governs cohabitation, individual states have taken steps to address the legal aspects of live-in relationships. For instance, North Carolina has deemed the law prohibiting unmarried couples from living together unconstitutional[14], reflecting a trend toward greater legal recognition and protection for cohabitating couples in certain jurisdictions.

United Kingdom:
In the United Kingdom, a woman and a man who live together in a stable, long-term sexual relationship are recognized as Common Law Spouses. The Civil Partnership Act[15] governs this type of relationship. According to the act, the individuals involved must be at least 16 years old, not already in a civil partnership or marriage, and not within the prohibited degrees of relationships as set out in the act. Initially, the act only covered same-sex couples, but with the 2019 amendment, couples of any sex can register their intent to enter into a civil partnership and legally form a live-in relationship.[16]

France:
In France, a live-in relationship is legally recognized and administered through a Civil Solidarity Pact, established by the French National Assembly in October 1999. This pact applies to stable and continuous cohabitation between couples of different sexes. According to the terms of the Civil Solidarity Pact, a live-in relationship is considered a contractual agreement that formalizes the shared life of the partners.[17]

Under French law, couples can register their cohabitation, and as a result, they may receive certain rights and benefits in various policy areas similar to those of married couples. Conversely, couples still need toering their live-in partnership, which means they have fewer rights and legal recognition under French law.[18]

Scotland:
The legal recognition of live-in relationships in Scotland falls under the Family Law (Scotland) Act, 2006[19]. This law sets specific criteria for identifying whether a couple is in a live-in relationship. These criteria encompass the duration of their cohabitation, the nature of their relationship, and the extent of their financial arrangements. Furthermore, the Act provides the right to seek financial support through the court in case of a relationship breakdown. However, if an unmarried couple living together separates without involving the court, they may not be covered by the legal provisions of the Act.

Conclusion
In considering the introduction of laws concerning live-in relationships, it is evident that while it is commendable, additional reforms are necessary to ensure fairness and protection for all parties involved. To enhance the effectiveness of these laws, it is suggested that the government implement a specific time limit for cohabitation.

Additionally, there is a need to reduce the power vested in the registrar to prevent potential misuse of authority that could lead to coercion or blackmail of the couple. Furthermore, the government must establish consequences for registrars who fail to carry out their duties responsibly. Moreover, provisions must be made to protect men's rights in live-in relationships. Lastly, the government must recognize and include provisions for those in same-sex live-in relationships, as they do not have the option of traditional marriage.

End Notes:

1. Khusboo v Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.
2. INDIA CONST. art. 21.
3. The Uniform Civil Code, 2024, § 387, No. 1, Act of Uttarakhand, 2024.
4. Badri Prasad v Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527.
5. Himani and anr. v State of Haryana, CRWP-11197-2021.
6. The Uniform Civil Code, 2024, § 378, No. 1, Act of Uttarakhand, 2024.
7. K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 10.
8. The Uniform Civil Code, 2024, § 381(3), No. 1, Act of Uttarakhand, 2024.
9. The Uniform Civil Code, 2024, § 381(4)(a), No. 1, Act of Uttarakhand, 2024.
10. The Uniform Civil Code, 2024, § 388, No. 1, Act of Uttarakhand, 2024.
11. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, No. 28, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).
12. Sandip Bhosale, Live-in Relationship, ADVOCATE KHOJ (July 4, 2024, 9:18 AM), https://www.advocatekhoj.com/blogs/index.php
13. Vertika Saxena, A Comparative study of the legal status of live-in relationship in India and other countries, BRAIN BOOSTER ARTICLES (July 4, 2024, 9:50 AM), https://www.brainboosterarticles.com/post/a-comparative-study-of-legal-status-of-live-in-relationship-in-india-and-other-countries
14. Anish Bargad, Live-In Relationship in Various Countries, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (July 5, 2024, 8:00 AM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4058-live-in-relationship-in-various-countries.html
15. Civil Partnership Act, 2004, No. 33, Act of Parliament, 2004 (United Kingdom).
16. Civil Partnership, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act, 2019, No. 12, Act of Parliament, 2019 (United Kingdom).
17. Civil Code Act, 1999, No. 99, Act of Parliament, 1999 (France).
18. Nora Sanchez Gassen, The increase in cohabitation and the role of marital status in family policies: a comparison of 12 European countries, EPRINTS SOTON, (July 5, 2024, 10:00 PM), https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/374131/1/BP24policies.pdf
19. The Family Law (Scotland) Act, 2006, § 28, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (Scotland).

Written By: Nitin Kumar Singh - Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.