DEHRADUN: In a singular order, Uttarakhand high court has directed police to provide security to an interfaith couple in a live-in relationship provided the couple register themselves under the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) within 48 hours. The order evoked surprise as the UCC, although approved by the President and notified by the state govt, is yet to be enforced in the Himalayan state.No guideline has yet been put in place for registration of live-ins.
Reacting to the order, Amit Bhatt, govt advocate, said, “The junior govt lawyer representing the case was unaware that UCC was yet to be implemented. There was a miscommunication, and the portion pertaining to UCC would be removed from the order to issue a revised one.” He added that a recall application would be filed Saturday.
The order was in response to a petition submitted by a 26-year-old Hindu woman and a 21-year-old Muslim man who had been cohabiting for some time. The couple had informed the court that they were both adults, belonged to different faiths, and were together in a live-in relationship, which had led to the parents and brother of one of the petitioners to issue threats to them.
Deputy govt advocate JS Virk, while arguing the case, referred to section 378 (1) of Uttarakhand UCC Act, which stipulates that “it shall be mandatory for partners in a live-in relationship within the state, irrespective of their residency status in Uttarakhand, to submit a statement of live-in relationship under sub-section (1) of section 381 to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction they are residing”.
A bench of Justices Manoj Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit Thursday said, “We dispose of the writ petition by stipulating that if the petitioners apply for registration under the aforementioned Act within 48 hours, SHO shall provide adequate protection to the petitioners for six weeks to ensure no harm is inflicted upon them by private respondents or any other person acting on their behalf. Upon the expiration of six weeks, the SHO concerned shall assess the threat perception to the petitioners and take appropriate measures as deemed necessary.”
Advocate Mohd Matloob, representing the couple, told TOI that when the couple reached the sub-registrar’s office to register under UCC in compliance with the court’s order, the officer said they did not have any such mechanism as guidelines for UCC implementation had not been issued by the state govt.
Reacting to the order, Amit Bhatt, govt advocate, said, “The junior govt lawyer representing the case was unaware that UCC was yet to be implemented. There was a miscommunication, and the portion pertaining to UCC would be removed from the order to issue a revised one.” He added that a recall application would be filed Saturday.
The order was in response to a petition submitted by a 26-year-old Hindu woman and a 21-year-old Muslim man who had been cohabiting for some time. The couple had informed the court that they were both adults, belonged to different faiths, and were together in a live-in relationship, which had led to the parents and brother of one of the petitioners to issue threats to them.
Deputy govt advocate JS Virk, while arguing the case, referred to section 378 (1) of Uttarakhand UCC Act, which stipulates that “it shall be mandatory for partners in a live-in relationship within the state, irrespective of their residency status in Uttarakhand, to submit a statement of live-in relationship under sub-section (1) of section 381 to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction they are residing”.
A bench of Justices Manoj Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit Thursday said, “We dispose of the writ petition by stipulating that if the petitioners apply for registration under the aforementioned Act within 48 hours, SHO shall provide adequate protection to the petitioners for six weeks to ensure no harm is inflicted upon them by private respondents or any other person acting on their behalf. Upon the expiration of six weeks, the SHO concerned shall assess the threat perception to the petitioners and take appropriate measures as deemed necessary.”
Advocate Mohd Matloob, representing the couple, told TOI that when the couple reached the sub-registrar’s office to register under UCC in compliance with the court’s order, the officer said they did not have any such mechanism as guidelines for UCC implementation had not been issued by the state govt.