MP UCC: Jail term, heavy fines for unregistered live-in relationships
Bhopal, July 19
Couples entering into live-in relationships will now face stringent legal obligations, with imprisonment provisions forming the core of a new law designed to regulate cohabitation.
The legislation mandates that partners must register their relationship with the Registrar within one month of living together. Failure to comply could result in imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of Rs 10,000.
The law goes further in penalising false declarations. Any couple that provides incorrect information during registration may face three months in jail and a fine of Rs 25,000. In cases where individuals ignore notices from the Registrar and fail to submit required statements, the punishment could extend to six months of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25,000.
These strict measures underline the government's intent to formalise live-in partnerships and prevent misuse. The Madhya Pradesh cabinet approved the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, which, according to Chief Minister Mohan Yadav, will be tabled in the coming Assembly session.
Eligibility criteria have also been clearly defined. Both partners must be at least 18 years old, must not fall under prohibited categories such as close relatives, and must not be previously married. If either partner is under 21 years of age, details of the relationship's commencement and termination will be shared with their parents or guardians.
Additionally, the Registrar is required to forward records of registered live-in couples to the local police station, ensuring official oversight.
The law also addresses issues of legitimacy and protection. Children born during a live-in relationship will be recognised as legitimate and entitled to full inheritance rights, removing any ambiguity about their status.
Women have been given special safeguards; if a male partner abandons his female partner, she can claim maintenance through a competent court, similar to the rights of a legally wedded wife.
Legal experts suggest that while the provisions will provide clarity and protection, especially for women and children, they may also spark debate over privacy and personal freedom. Critics argue that mandatory registration and parental notification for those under 21 could intrude into private lives.
Nevertheless, the law marks a significant shift in how live-in relationships are treated, balancing social accountability with legal recognition. With imprisonment and fines looming for non-compliance, couples will now have to weigh their options carefully before entering cohabitation.
— IANS
Reader Comments
I'm torn on this one — the maintenance clause for women is excellent, but mandatory registration with police oversight? That's a bit too Big Brother for my liking. Also, what about couples who want to keep things private? Not everyone is ready to announce their relationship to the government. The fine is steep for a simple mistake! 😕
Well-intentioned but poorly executed. We already have domestic violence laws and maintenance provisions. Adding jail for not registering is excessive and may push couples to hide their relationships altogether. Also, why send details to police stations? That's just inviting harassment. The UCC should focus on standardising marriage and divorce laws, not policing private arrangements. Respectful dissent here.
As someone who studied law in India, I see both pros and cons. The inheritance rights for children and maintenance for women are much-needed protections. But Rs 10,000 fine for not registering? That's nearly a month's salary for many workers. And 6 months jail for ignoring notices? Courts are already overburdened. Let's hope the implementation is sensible and doesn't criminalise ordinary people.
Good step for women's protection but bad for privacy. In a country where live-in relationships are still taboo in many areas, this will create more problems. Imagine being forced to tell your parents because you're under 21! And the police having your records? That's just asking for corruption. The government should have consulted more before rushing this through. A balanced approach needed! 👎
Finally someone is addressing the legal vacuum around live-in relationships! The
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.