‘Mummy-Daddy’ state. Live-in is the new marriage

The BJP government’s Uniform Civil Code Bill, passed by the Uttarakhand assembly, arms an already judgemental society with more weapons to make life difficult for a couple seeking to live together. Its Uniform Civil Code, or UCC, Bill defies the very concept of live-in, and has landed men in a tricky situation. They will think twice before breaking up. Because if they do, their partner can claim ‘maintenance’ from them.

One of the reasons couples often choose to live together is to avoid the messy legal entanglements that come with marriage. Uttarakhand’s UCC Bill changes this—not only does it involve more paperwork, but it’s also likely to make the decision to live together costly.

As if having a family wasn’t enough to control, now the government has also become “Mummy and Daddy.”

And the registrar is the Big Brother. Couples planning to cohabit have to “mandatorily” register their relationship with the registrar, who will forward the records to the police station. And if the couple doesn’t register within a month, they might land in jail for up to three months.

If any of the parties in the relationship are under 21, they have to inform their parents or guardians. What are the chances that parents would allow it?

Uniform Civil Code has been a topic of heated debate

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been a topic of heated debate and has faced several criticisms. Here are some common points raised by critics:

Threat to Cultural Diversity: Opponents argue that implementing a uniform code across diverse religious and cultural communities may erode the unique customs, traditions, and personal laws associated with each religion. They fear that this could lead to homogenization and undermine the rich tapestry of India’s cultural heritage.
Violation of Personal Freedom: Critics claim that the UCC interferes with an individual’s right to follow their personal beliefs and practices. They argue that personal laws are deeply ingrained in religious and social contexts, and imposing a uniform code may infringe upon personal freedom.
Gender Bias: While the UCC aims for gender equality, some critics believe that it does not go far enough. They argue that certain provisions may still perpetuate gender bias, especially in matters related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
Selective Implementation: Skeptics point out that the UCC has not been uniformly implemented across all states. Some states have resisted its adoption, leading to a lack of consistency. Critics argue that selective implementation defeats the purpose of a truly uniform code.
Political Motivations: Critics often view the UCC as a politically motivated move. They claim that parties use it as a tool to gain electoral advantage or appease specific voter bases. This perception undermines the genuine intent behind the legislation.
Complexity and Practical Challenges: Implementing a uniform code requires addressing intricate legal, social, and religious complexities. Critics argue that navigating these challenges may lead to unintended consequences and legal disputes.
Lack of Public Consensus: Some critics believe that the UCC should be a result of broader public consensus rather than a top-down legislative approach. They advocate for more inclusive discussions involving various stakeholders.

In summary, while the UCC aims to create a more equitable legal framework, it faces significant opposition due to concerns related to cultural diversity, personal freedom, and gender equality .