Live-in Rights Under Scrutiny: Examining Privacy Concerns In Uttarakhand UCC

In this article, we will briefly discuss the introduction of live-in relationships in India along with special reference to recent bill.

Understanding the Basics First

First things first, let us start with understanding the concept of live-in relations. A live-in relationship, refers to an arrangement where two people, typically romantically involved, choose to live together without being legally married. It involves sharing a household, finances, and often an intimate relationship, similar to marriage in many ways, but without the formal marriage.

The global stance on live-in relationships is quite diverse, ranging from complete acceptance and legal recognition to outright condemnation and even criminalization. In many countries like Canada, France, Germany, and the United States, live-in relationships are widely accepted and enjoy legal recognition. Some offer common-law marriage status, granting similar rights and responsibilities as marriage. On the other hand, in many countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, live-in relationships are illegal and can be punishable by law. This is often based on religious and cultural interpretations.

India, like many other Asian countries lies somewhere in the middle. India's stance on live-in relationships is a tapestry woven from various threads, none fully representing the whole picture.

On the legal front, silence looms large. Unlike many countries, India lacks a specific law acknowledging or granting legal status to live-in partnerships. While landmark judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court (discussed later) have paved the way for recognizing their legality, this acceptance remains conditional and limited. Uncertainty hangs heavy, leaving individuals in such relationships vulnerable to misinterpretations and potential misuse of existing regulations.

Evolution of Live-in relationship in India

The evolution of legal understanding regarding live-in relationships in India began as a whisper, gradually crescendoing into a chorus of acceptance through a series of landmark judgments, culminating in the pivotal S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal AIR 2010 SC 3196. While India still lacks a specific law formally recognizing these partnerships, this journey highlights the changing social realities and the legal system's ongoing grapple with them.

Before S. Khushboo, earlier cases like Badri Prasad v. Board of Consolidators AIR 1978 SC 1557 laid the groundwork by establishing a presumption of marriage for long-term cohabitation. This provided a crucial foundation for further discussions and challenges. Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan AIR 2001 All 254 chipped away at the notion of criminalization by drawing a clear distinction between legality and morality in such relationships, emphasizing an individual's right to choose their living arrangements. Then came Lata Singh v. State of UP AIR 2006 SC 2522, where the Supreme Court explicitly declared the legality of cohabitation outside of marriage for consenting adults. Again in the ruling of Tulsa v. Durghatiya, AIR 2008 SC 1193, the Supreme Court reiterated that there would be a presumption of marriage when there has been long cohabitation.

However, it was the pivotal judgment in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal AIR 2010 SC 3196, that truly reshaped the legal landscape. By declaring live-in relationships between consenting adults as legal and non-criminal, this verdict shifted the legal landscape, recognizing the fundamental right to personal liberty.

This watershed moment wasn't just about legality; it sparked a vital societal discourse. Referencing the mythological pairing of Lord Krishna and Radha, the Supreme Court acknowledged the cultural diversity within India and paved the way for further legal developments. High Court judgments following Khushboo case offered partial protection in areas like maintenance rights and shared assets, demonstrating a gradual shift towards recognizing the needs of individuals in such relations.

Following the landmark Khushboo case, which decriminalized live-in relationships in India, a tapestry of legal developments began to weave, addressing the multifaceted needs of individuals in such partnerships.

Inheritance Rights and Legitimacy

The legal landscape concerning inheritance rights for children born out of live-in relationships in India has seen a complex evolution, marked by conflicting judgments and calls for reform. Cases like Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant AIR 2010 SC 2933 and Bharata Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan AIR 2010 SC 2685 offered some hope, allowing these children to inherit parental property but not ancestral coparcenary property, a traditional Hindu inheritance system. However, this limited scope left many concerns unaddressed.

A significant shift came with Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun 2023 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737. Recognizing changing social realities, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a progressive interpretation of the Hindu Marriage Act. This opened the door for children of void and voidable marriages, potentially including those born from live-in relationships, to inherit ancestral coparcenary property. The recent Uttrakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) bill too provide legitimacy to the children of live-in relationship placing them at par with children of a lawful marriage (Section 379).

Maintenance Rights

The issue of maintenance for women in live-in relationships has gained traction in recent years, with Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha AIR 2011 SC 6497 being a landmark case. This judgment emphasized that men shouldn't exploit legal loopholes to enjoy the benefits of a live-in relationship without fulfilling responsibilities. The court explored broadening the definition of "wife" under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to allow women in such relationships to claim maintenance.

Furthermore, the judgment recognized the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWFDVA) to live-in relationships in certain circumstances. When these relationships are deemed "in the nature of marriage" under the PWFDVA, they receive legal recognition as domestic relationships. This entitles women in such partnerships to the act's protection against domestic violence and abuse. A similar provision has been added in the Uttrakhand UCC bill to provide maintenance to the deserted women (Section 388).

While the legal landscape governing live-in relationships in India has witnessed positive developments through landmark judgments and the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWFDVA) in certain cases, the overall position remains unclear and fragmented. Notably, the recommendations of the Malimath Committee, established to suggest reforms in the Indian justice system, also emphasized the need for legal recognition of live-in relationships. Despite these advancements, however, there hasn't been a uniform approach to expressly codifying these rights.

Right to privacy vis-à-vis UCC Bill

Enter the recent Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) bill, which throws a curveball into the mix. It stands out not only by recognizing live-in relationships and related rights, but also mandating their registration (Section 378), notification to parents in case of persons under 21 (Section 385), keeping of records (Section 382) with penalties for non-compliance (Section 385). While this bold step sparks conversations about potential progress, it simultaneously raises concerns about its constitutionality and right to privacy and personal liberty.

The right to privacy, though not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, has been recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India . This landmark judgment has significant implications for individuals in live-in relationships, previously navigating an ambiguous legal landscape. It observed that the disclosure of personal information is prohibited unless it is directly relevant to a public activity or interest, or unless it is deemed necessary to protect a larger public interest that outweighs the individual's right to privacy.

Further the case of Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M., also known as Hadiya case, solidified the individual's right to choose a partner, declaring it within the "exclusive domain of each individual's core zone of privacy." This reinforced the autonomy of adults in choosing their relationships, including live-in partnerships.

Linking the right to privacy, as established in above cases, to the mandatory registration of live-in relationships proposed in the Uttarakhand UCC Bill presents a complex and controversial issue.

Requiring individuals to register their personal relationships, particularly intimate ones like live-in partnerships, raises concerns about violating their right to privacy. Sharing sensitive details with authorities could lead to potential misuse, discrimination, or societal pressure. This mandatory nature might even discourage individuals from entering such relationships due to privacy concerns or fear of stigma, potentially restricting individual autonomy and choice. Additionally, the extent of information required for registration could be intrusive, exceeding what is necessary for legitimate purposes, further exacerbating privacy worries and creating unnecessary burdens.

Proponents of mandatory registration argue that it brings transparency and clarity to the legal status of live-in relationships, potentially benefiting partners in terms of inheritance, maintenance, and property rights. It might also help prevent misuse of such relationships, particularly for exploitative purposes or claiming benefits fraudulently. Adequate data protection safeguards and robust privacy laws could mitigate concerns about information misuse.

Beyond registration, the bill further complicates the privacy debate by mandating notification to parents in cases where any of the partner is under 21 years of age. This provision raises additional concerns about parental overreach and potential conflicts with individuals' right to privacy and autonomy, particularly for young adults.

The winds of change are blowing through India's social fabric, and the legal landscape struggles to keep pace. One such arena of evolving realities is the realm of live-in relationships, prompting heated debates and highlighting the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive legal framework. While attempts like the Uttarakhand UCC Bill attempt to address this issue, its piecemeal approach and potential privacy concerns underscore the need for a deeper, more inclusive solution.

This necessitates a dedicated national law or amendments to existing personal laws. This framework, to be truly effective, must be built upon pillars of inclusivity and non-discrimination, instead of piecemeal attempts like the UCC Bill. However, navigating this path requires careful consideration of the fundamental right to privacy. Mandatory registration, keeping of records and notifying the parents, as proposed in the UCC Bill, raises legitimate concerns about data misuse and societal pressure. For the time being, exploring alternative methods like self-declaration or cohabitation agreements could offer a more privacy-sensitive approach. Additionally, robust data protection safeguards, clear data retention policies, and transparency about these measures are non-negotiable elements of a truly inclusive framework.

Beyond legal mechanisms, recognizing the evolving societal landscape is crucial. India's demographic shift, characterized by urbanization, later marriages, and economic independence, necessitates legal adaptation to acknowledge diverse family structures. Learning from international best practices such can further illuminate the path forward. Examining successful frameworks in other countries can offer valuable insights, provided we adapt them mindfully to our unique social and cultural context.

The Indian legal landscape, like the society it reflects, is in flux. The winds of change are undeniable, and with them, the hope for a legal framework that embraces the complexities of live-in relationships in a nuanced and inclusive manner. While challenges remain, the momentum for change is building, and we can hope that some form of meaningful recognition may be introduced sooner rather than later, either through National Uniform Civil Code or by introducing amendments in the current bill.

The author is an Assistant District Attorney, Government of Haryana. Views are personal.