When man steals your wife there is no better revenge than to let him her
The precise interpretation of section 497 which deals with adultery clearly depicts the provisions relating to offence of adultery, According to section 497 of IPC whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man such sexual intercourse not amounting to rape is guilty of the offence of adultery and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor. In black law dictionary adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with a person other than the offender’s husband or wife or by a person with a person who is married to another. In layman comprehension we can define adultery as an act in which an individual who is married shove himself/herself in a sexual relationship with another person which is not recognized as their spouse by the law.
Historical background with context of religious and moral aspect: Adultery law came into force in 1860 when our country was highly influenced by the Britishers. As ethical conduct adultery is an extramarital affair can never be accepted and same on religious social moral and legal grounds is referred to incorrect. As same extramarital affair is considered as faulty relationship because it is against social norms. Historically many cultures have treated adultery as a serious offence and stringent punishments were used to inflict such as mutilation, torture etc. flashing on religious aspect mostly Hindus and Christianity believe marriage as a sacred bond and the crime of adultery is regarded as sinful unforgiveable in the eyes of God. Talking about Quran description, those who commit adultery both men and women should be given 100 lashes. Somehow the law was concordant with social and religious scripts and lessons. In India too manusmriti, the offence of adultery could lead to vivid punishment and a person addicted to intercourse with other men’s wives used to get inflicted with banishment. The law commission of India in1837 in their first draft of IPC didn’t include adultery as an offence. In lord Macualey view adultery or martial cuckoldry was a private wrong between the individuals and not a criminal offence but the same was overruled by other members of law commission.
Growing awareness of rights certainly changes the prescribed laws but we can’t oversee the Indian culture without marking the societal presumption and morals which are on the way of manipulation the Indian culture followed different religious aspects and the same basis the view and verdict will seem absurd to society but with the emergence of thriving consciousness in the public, archaic laws should be get amended. However, by the adjudication of court, it precisely led people to comprehend the constitution which again depicted as supreme to the country comprising the reverence to the fundamental rights of citizens and certitude will remain ad infinitum in the eyes of seekers.
Adultery Law In India: The 158-year-old adultery law in India didn’t recognize the will of the woman, unlike the country’s sexual harassment laws which hinge on the woman’s consent and women couldn’t be prosecuted under the provision, even if the wife was a willing participant in the act, a husband could sue a man who had sexual relationship with his wife on the other hand if a husband has an affair the wife cannot similarly prosecute him or the woman, he cheated on her with. and keeping the status of a women according to the law was discussable and controversial in itself. Accused man for committing adultery with a married woman was punished by the statue while the same was not applicable to women. In the eyes of law women were believed to be innocent and she had no separate life and was treated as husbands’ property which challenged the fundamental rights of women. On the following grounds adultery law was regularly challenged before the courts in many different cases. The law was first challenged in 1951 in the case of yusuf aziz vs state of Bombay . Petitioner stated that the adultery law violated the fundamental rights of equality guaranteed under article 14 and 15 of the constitution. After three years supreme court held that section is mainly accepted that it is a man who is seducer and not the woman. The court stated that women could be a victim of adultery and not a perpetrator of the crime under section 497 of IPC. The law was later challenged in the case of sowmithri vs union of India. In the case supreme court stated that men were not allowed to prosecute their wives for the offence of adultery in order to protect sanctity of bond of marriage. For the same reason women couldn’t be allowed to prosecute their husbands. In the case of v.revathi vs union of India the Supreme court of India observed the adultery law was a shield rather than a sword. In the case court. In the same case court upheld the constitutional validity of section 497 read with section 198 crpc by stating that this provision disables both wife and husband from punishing each other for adultery hence not discriminatory. The law commission of India report of 1971 and the malimath committee on criminal reforms of 2013 gave their prepositions to amend the adultery law. They kept the view to make the adultery law gender neutral.
The Case In Which Supreme Court Struck Down The Law Relating To Adultery: Joseph shine vs union of India in December 2017 joseph shine filed the petition challenging the validity of section 497. The three-judge bench led by then chief justice of India Dipak Mishra had referred petition to five judge constitutional bench comprised of Deepak Mishra justice RF Nariman A M khanwilkar DY chandrachud and Indu Malhotra adverts the law seems to be archaic. Subsequently judgement held the following words:-
1. Section 467 is archaic and is constitutionally invalid
2. Section 467 is no longer be a criminal offence
3. A husband it not a master of his wife
4. Section 467 is absolutely and manifestly arbitary
Marriage institution and decriminalizing adultery law:The conclusion: While assimilating the supreme court’s judgement on adultery which declared the 150 years old law unconstitutional, the judgment can advert to radical impact upon marriages in India. The country which is on the top list of raising divorce rates and cases of marital infidelity decriminalizing the adultery law will critically endanger the marriage institution. Supreme court clearly assimilates the consequences and from now, the only redressal to men and women who finds his partner in adulterous relationship can go for divorce which in citizens view supreme court should have thought that the verdict would end up with institution of marriage. Admittedly, decriminalizing doesn’t merely endorse the extramarital affairs but also leaves the little children in the lurch with the emergence of divorce as they way out.As sacred dominance of marriage, its being considered as one of the precise forms of bonding having consensus of patriarchal hold. According to ancient norms male partner receives indispensable role in the family which we have been witnessing in the surroundings. Growing awareness of rights certainly changes the prescribed laws but we can’t oversee the Indian culture without marking the societal presumption and morals which are on the way of manipulation the Indian culture followed different religious aspects and the same basis the view and verdict will seem absurd to society but with the emergence of thriving consciousness in the public, archaic laws should be get amended. However, by the adjudication of court, it precisely led people to comprehend the constitution which again depicted as supreme to the country comprising the reverence to the fundamental rights of citizens and certitude will remain ad infinitum in the eyes of seekers.
(The author is Student Of Law at Dogra Law College Jammu Affiliated to university of Jammu . The views, opinions, facts, assumptions, presumptions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”.)
[email protected]