Privacy concerns, social stigma behind low live-in registrations under UCC?
Tuesday, 11 February 2025 | PURNIMA BISHT | DEHRADUN
Since the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) on January 27 in Uttarakhand, only three live-in relationships have been officially registered so far. This surprisingly low number has raised questions about whether live-in relationships are rare in the State or if couples are reluctant to register due to concerns over privacy and societal judgment. Despite the government’s assurance that applicants’ information will remain encrypted and secure, many young couples still perceive the registration process as an intrusion into their personal lives.
Speaking to The Pioneer, Akanksha Garg (name changed), an MBA student in Dehradun, shared her perspective on why she refuses to register her live-in relationship. She recounted how she previously lived with her boyfriend for two years while studying in Delhi but had to part ways when he moved abroad for higher studies. Now, she resides with her current partner in Dehradun but feels uneasy about disclosing this to the authorities. She expressed strong opposition to the idea of formal registration, stating that she is not comfortable approaching an officer to declare her relationship status, especially when it could invite scrutiny. She also said that while her landlord is understanding, societal judgment about live-in relationships remains a significant issue.
A young man, 24-year-old Abhishek Kumar (name changed) opined that live-in registration is unlikely to appeal to younger couples in Uttarakhand. He stated that while people in their 30s who are in serious, long-term relationships might consider registration, couples in their early to mid-20s are still in the process of understanding their partners and exploring relationships. “Many break up within a few months of living together, making the idea of registering each relationship impractical. I believe that those who introduced the registration requirement are likely from an older generation that still views live-in relationships with skepticism. Younger people see cohabitation as a way to understand compatibility rather than a moral issue,” he said.
A 29-year-old Dehradun resident Mayank Deorani (name changed), offered a slightly different perspective. While he acknowledged that the policy could be beneficial for long-term couples, particularly in preventing false cases where women accuse men of exploiting them under the pretense of marriage, he personally does not see the need to register his new relationship at this stage. He admitted that he is not comfortable with the idea of involving authorities in his private life and will only consider registration if he were in a committed, long-term relationship. Many believe that the reluctance to register live-in relationships under UCC appears to stem from multiple factors, including concerns over privacy, societal stigma and the evolving nature of relationships among young people. While some see the potential benefits of the policy, the prevailing sentiment among many couples is that formalising their relationship through registration is unnecessary and intrusive.
Whether attitudes toward live-in registration will change in the future remains uncertain, but for now, it appears that young couples in Uttarakhand are currently apprehensive to embrace this new legal requirement.
