Observing that the self-respect of a person cannot be sacrificed in the garb of invasion of privacy, especially when he is a child born in a live-in relationship, the Uttarakhand High Court Wednesday asked what was wrong with regulating such relationships. The Bench of Chief Justice G Narender was hearing a petition challenging provisions of the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024 - especially those pertaining to live-in relationships. The petition, filed by Almasuddin Siddiqui through advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta, also challenges the list of prohibited relationships mentioned in the code and says that it not only hinders petitioners’ religious right to marry but also declares such marriage void and criminalises it. Appearing for the Uttarakhand and the central governments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought six weeks to file a response to the petition after the Chief Justice sought justification on Section 387(1) of the law, which criminalises non-registration of live-in relationships with either imprisonment up to three months or a fine of R 10,000 or both. Mehta said, “We will put in a reply. There is a justification for this. We have conducted a study and there are several destitute women”. In his oral observations, the CJ asked what was wrong in regulating live-in relationships. “There is also a fallout of this. What happens if this relationship breaks up? What if there is a child out of this relationship? In respect of marriage, there is a presumption regarding paternity but in a live-in relationship, where is that presumption? In the garb of invasion of your privacy, can the self-respect of another person be sacrificed, that too when he is your child and there is no proof of marriage… or paternity,” he said. “It (registration if live-ins) is a provision for women's empowerment,” the SG said. The CJ said that live-ins are already recognised under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. “The problem is not just about women - though the lady will face a certain amount of problems - but of proving paternity… If there is a registration, this would certainly help,” he said. As for the degrees of prohibited relations, the SG said such relationships were already prohibited under the Special Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and Christian Marriage Act. “(This leads to) genetic problems. We are in 2025; we have to be a little more aware of this. It's medically proven,” said the Chief Justice, asking the SG about the prohibition of marriage between cousins. The SG said, “These are the norms accepted across the country amongst all religions, including the Special Marriage Act, which is a non-communal act. There cannot be a fundamental right to marry your (cousin) sister.”
