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.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 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.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 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.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 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.