Uttarakhand's new law requires unmarried cohabiting couples to notify officials about their relationship.

Unmarried couples in a live-in relationship must register it with the government within 30 days of moving in together. The registrar reviews the application and may ask for additional information during an investigation. If approved, the relationship is recorded in a register and a certificate issued. Refusal to register may occur if one partner is married, a minor, or if consent was obtained through coercion or fraud. Partners can end the relationship by notifying the registrar and their partner. Failing to register the relationship or providing false information can result in fines, up to 3 months of imprisonment, or both.

    • idiomaddict@feddit.deEnglish
      01·
      9 months ago

      So it seems like people weren’t having to register at all before and now only unmarried couples will, confounded by an existing belief that Muslim men “coerce” Hindu women to marry them, which is conveniently listed as a denial reason.

      The government where I live knows where I live, whom I live with, and recently fined me ~20€ for telling them I moved in later than I should have. That’s understandably stifling to some, but not everyone and it’s not a universally unacceptable infringement on human rights, as long as it is equally imposed. Doing it only to unmarried couples or intentionally to break up interfaith relationships is a different thing.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
        02·
        9 months ago

        What is so difficult with saying: fuck the government love who you want? Spending whole paragraphs wandering around a point without making it.

        • idiomaddict@feddit.deEnglish
          01·
          9 months ago

          Fuck the government, love who you want. My point was that I believe fuck the government, love who you want, but the problem wasn’t initially clear to me because I live in a bureaucratic country. I’m not sure why you’re mad that I needed a follow up question to understand

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            9 months ago

            The article spells out why they are doing this. It is to go after people wanting to have sex outside of marriage.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.deEnglish
              11·
              9 months ago

              The article says it’s to prevent child and coercion partnerships. I needed extra context to understand that coercion is probably a political term for interfaith. Again, I don’t know how that could bother someone, but go off, I guess.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
                12·
                9 months ago

                India’s courts have sometimes frowned on live-in relationships. In 2012, a Delhi court deemed live-in relationships “immoral” and dismissed them as an “infamous product of Western culture”, labelling them a mere “urban fad.”

                • idiomaddict@feddit.deEnglish
                  11·
                  9 months ago

                  The Supreme Court has been more supportive. In 2010, the court endorsed the right of unmarried couples to live together in a case involving an actress accused of outraging public decency. In 2013, it urged parliament to enact laws safeguarding women and children in live-in relationships, ruling that such relationships were “neither a crime nor a sin”, despite being socially unacceptable in the country. (In Uttarakhand’s contentious proposed law, a deserted woman can seek maintenance from her live-in partner through the courts, and children born from such relationships will be deemed legitimate.)

                  The next paragraph, for clarity.

                  This is a really weird thing you’re doing here: I made a good faith effort to understand, did, and for some reason you now want me to explain this to you. I’m really curious about why it bothers you that I didn’t understand.