top of page
Search

Loving and Live-In Under UCC in Uttarakhand

  • Writer: Shruti Prasad
    Shruti Prasad
  • Feb 5
  • 4 min read

Updated: Feb 11

There has been a recent addition to the “Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code” where the rules make it mandatory for a live-in couple to register their relationship, in its beginning as well as its end (Bhaumik, 2025). This change in the state applies not only to the members living in the state but also to the ones who are outside of the state boundaries. There are various kinds of prohibitions, 74 in total, for a couple to fulfil if they want to be considered valid by the “religious leader” and hence by the registration (Raj, 2025). The vagueness of the rule comes from the undefined “religious leader” that is mentioned. Despite this, the registration has the power not to consider the couple's application on certain grounds. Now it has been around nine days since the UCC has been updated and one couple has registered their relationship (Singh, 2025).

cat and couple playing video games
Live-in Relationships

Upon research, it has been found that around 50% of Indians agree that live-in is an important step before a committed relationship. However, orthodox India still believes and feels that the concept of live-in is preposterous. There are various places where society already discriminates between a married and a live-in couple, in terms of providing them with housing opportunities and more. Now, a liberal feminist might argue and see the UCC as a progressive step towards eliminating gender-based legal discrepancies along with providing the couple with “justice as fairness”. As described by John Rawls, “justice as fairness” refers to the legal structures that must guarantee equal liberties for all individuals (Yeşilkaya, 2022). This might be the “positive” aspect that was seen while creating this rule of registration, as the codification of rights for live-in couples provides legal protection and clarity, especially for women who frequently suffer the most from social and economic vulnerabilities in non-marital cohabitation.

However, as of today, we live in an Indian society whose mindset is not very open to the topics of “live-in”. The cons far outweigh the pros in our lived reality. First of all, despite its apparent neutrality, legal regulation frequently turns into a tool for monitoring and control. A paradox is introduced when live-in relationships are formalised within a legal framework: although they provide legal protection, they also expose private relationships to state scrutiny. This issue has also been addressed in the article by Pradhan (2024), which states that experts pointed out that inter-caste and interfaith couples, who are already frequently singled out by vigilante groups and even the government, should be especially concerned about the possibility of moral policing, harassment, and government surveillance of their private lives.

Moving on, the second concern is that a layer of bureaucratic oversight brought about by the required registration could discourage people from choosing live-in arrangements out of concern for social backlash or legal complications. This renders an aspect of live-in relationships void, where most couples opt to avoid the additional pressure of formalising the relationship, therefore offering the flexibility to break up at any moment if they want. It is less complicated, legal and formal as compared to divorce which is beneficial to lots of couples.


The possible homogenisation of various relational experiences under a single legal framework is another relevant worry that comes with the UCC update. This might increase discrimination against couples who are out of the norm, such as Hindu-Muslim couples, homosexual couples, and more. Despite its seeming neutrality, the UCC may ignore the cultural differences among various communities and impose a single legal interpretation on a range of lived experiences. Gayatri Spivak's criticism of the "subaltern" is fit to describe this situation. As stated in the criticism, "subaltern" stands for the people in the minority. And it has been frequently observed that they are the ones whose voices are often ignored in grand narratives of reform and progress (Ambesange, 2021). Therefore, there is a chance that the UCC will stifle alternative relational forms that don't fit into the established legal categories in its effort to grant equal legal standing.


From a radical feminist perspective, legal codification is a two-edged sword that continues to function within the patriarchal systems that have historically attempted to restrict women's autonomy. This is because rather than promoting genuine agency over interpersonal relationships, the need for legal recognition may unintentionally force people to fit in with society's expectations.


So, if it is seen from a standpoint that weighs the positives and negatives of the change in the UCC, it is evident that the regulation implemented has more cons than pros. Now, it is upon our society to render those negatives nil and overpower them with the positives. Accept “live-in” as normal and be open to it. India, we need to change how we love and see it. The real test of its effectiveness will be found in the day-to-day experiences of people navigating love and cohabitation in its wake and not just in legal statutes. So with the beginning of the month of love try and be more accommodating!



Bibliography



lesbian couple with child same sex parenting lesbian moms, theme of the month
This research article is brought to you by © The Gal Gala

Comments

  • The Gal Gala
  • Our Editorial
  • Our LinkedIn
  • Instagram

© 2025 The Gal Gala

bottom of page