By ARUN PRATAP SINGH
DEHRADUN, 12 Feb: Ever since the UCC has been implemented in the state, it was expected that the new law is bound to be challenged from one quarter or the other , despite the fact that the Supreme Court has been urging the Centre since long to bring in Uniform Civil Code as is recommended under the Constitution. The new UCC law has been challenged in the Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday. In particular, provision related to the ‘live-in relationships’ and divorce provisions have been challenged on different grounds by the petitioners in the Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Ashish Naithani.
During the hearing, the Bench asked the state government to submit a reply within six weeks on the allegations made in the petitions. The hearing in this case will now be held after six weeks.
Bhimtal resident Suresh Singh Negi has challenged various provisions of the UCC in the High Court as a public interest litigation (PIL). The provisions related to the ‘live-in relationships’ have been challenged by Negi while some other provisions related to divorces have been challenged by Dehradun resident Elmasuddin Siddique claiming these provisions to be in violation of Shariat laws. Siddiqui has claimed that the UCC has overlooked minority customs related to Muslims and the Parsis. Petitioner Negi has claimed in his petition that live-in relationships are unconstitutional.
The petition states that for a normal marriage, the age of the boy should be 21 years and the girl 18 years. In a live-in relationship, the age of both has been fixed at 18 years. He also objected to the provision that the children born from such relationships will also be considered legitimate.
Negi reminds that in case, a person wants to end a live-in relationship, he or she can leave the partner within 15 days by giving a simple application to the Registrar. On the other hand, in a normal marriage, the entire judicial process has to be followed to get a divorce. The petitioner alleges that divorce happens after a long drawn process taking sometimes up to a decade, during which the husband has to pay full maintenance to the spouse. He claimed that the state government has violated the rights of the state’s citizens received from the Constitution by interfering with them. The UCC has ignored the Constitutional rights given to citizens.
The petitioner argues that the consequences of this could be serious in the future, leading people to prefer live-in relationships over marriage. The relationships are also likely to be short-term, leading to frequent partner changes.
The petition stated that registration is necessary after the year 2010. Failure to register results in a punishment of three months or a fine of 10 thousand rupees. Live-in relationships are considered a kind of legal marriage with differences in the legal process under the UCC. The court has sought a reply from the government within six weeks.
In the second petition, it has been alleged that the state government has ignored Islamic customs, the Quran, and its provisions while passing the UCC bill. For instance, the Quran mandates a wife to pray for 40 days after her husband’s death for his soul’s peace, which UCC prohibits, it claims.
According to Shariat, there is a provision for marrying someone other than close relatives in Islam, which is not allowed in UCC. In property matters, a father can divide his property among all sons and keep a part with himself, donating it when he wants, which UCC does not permit. Siddiqui has sought amendments for these provisions.
