Frame a law that governs live-ins: HC to state, Centre
The hc judge pointed to Uttarakhand, which recently implemented ucc that prescribes a procedure for registering live-in relations
Prefer HT
on Google
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday said the Central and the state government should frame a law to govern live-in relationships , and that till this done, the state government should appoint an authority or tribunal where such relationships can be registered.
“The live-in relationships is liable to be registered by a competent authority/tribunal, which is required to be established by the government. Till enactment of appropriate legislation by the government, let the competent authority be established in every district of the state to look into the matter of registration of such live-in relationships, who will redress the grievances of such couples who have entered such relationship and of children born out of therefrom. Let the portal be launched in this regard,” Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of Jaipur bench of Rajasthan high court said.
His comments came while hearing multiple petitions seeking protection for couples in live-in relationships.
The judge pointed to Uttarakhand, which recently implemented a Uniform Civil Code that, among other things, prescribes a procedure for registering live-in relationships.
The registration and other laws will protect couples in live-in relationships from any harm from their family, “relatives or members of society”, and ensure the financial security of non-earning female partners and children born of such relationships, the judge said.
{{/usCountry}}The registration and other laws will protect couples in live-in relationships from any harm from their family, “relatives or members of society”, and ensure the financial security of non-earning female partners and children born of such relationships, the judge said.
{{/usCountry}}The court referred to a larger bench, the issue of whether married people who enter live-in relationships without first ending their marriage are entitled to any sort of legal protection at all. Some of the petitions came from such couples.
{{/usCountry}}The court referred to a larger bench, the issue of whether married people who enter live-in relationships without first ending their marriage are entitled to any sort of legal protection at all. Some of the petitions came from such couples.
{{/usCountry}}“Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage, or/and whether two married persons with two different marriages in a live-in relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get a protection order from the Court?,” Justice Dhand asked.
{{/usCountry}}“Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage, or/and whether two married persons with two different marriages in a live-in relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get a protection order from the Court?,” Justice Dhand asked.
{{/usCountry}}The court recognized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to all individuals, but it also acknowledged concerns about societal norms, public morality, and legal obligations arising from marriage.
The judgment extensively referred to past rulings by the Supreme Court and various high courts, which have upheld the right of consenting adults to live together while also highlighting limitations imposed by existing marriage laws.
