'Live-in acceptable, why not adultery?'
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
We live in an adulterous generation whose eyes are FULL of adultery...
“Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children”
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Many people today think that fornication (i.e., s*x outside of marriage) is acceptable just so long as no marital commitment is involved. That is demonic thinking. The only acceptable s*x is within a marriage.
MUMBAI: A 41-year-old businessman facing criminal proceedings before a Dadar magistrate for adultery has moved the
A high court bench of Justices Ajay Khanwilkar and A R Joshi issued notice to attorney general Goolam Vahanvati on Thursday when the matter filed only last week came up for its first hearing.
Adultery has been an offence in
The petitioner, Dilip Mehta (name changed), is married for 16 years and has a 12-year-old daughter. The Worli resident's counsel Nitin Pradhan said that society has changed and "consensual s*xual relationship within the confines of public order and decency" ought no longer to be an offence under Section 497 of the IPC.
He said the existing provisions against adultery violate a man's fundamental right to equality and right to life under Article 21.
"The world has changed and under the law protecting women against domestic violence there is a recognition of live-in relationships. There is also a challenge pending before the Supreme Court regarding same-s*x marriages. In such a scenario, Section 497 is redundant. It is a man's right to have consenting s*x with an adult partner." he stressed.
But opposing the petition vehemently, advocate Vibhav Krishna, counsel for Sandip Singapuri, another Worli resident who had lodged the complaint of adultery against Mehta, said that "adultery is an offence that cannot be equated with live-in relationships."
He said Section 497 of the IPC is the "right of a husband to protect an intrusion in the matrimonial relation."
Singapuri had accused Mehta of having an adulterous relationship with his wife after hiring a detective and relying on videotapes of the couple spotted in a car as "proof". Mehta had denied all allegations of adultery.
The high court said since there is a challenge to the Constitutional validity, it would issue notice to the AG but hear the matter early and posted it on February 16.
Married woman can live with her lover, says court
Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband? The Rajasthan High Court says yes.
In a judgment on Wednesday, the court allowed a married woman, Manju, to live with her lover, Suresh. “It is improper to pass an order to hand over any unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay,” said justices GS Mishra and KC Sharma. The court also said that nobody should consider an adult woman as a consumer product.
While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Manju’s husband, the court came down hard on the misuse of habeas corpus petitions by people who want to thrust their will upon adult women without their consent. The court said the husband was free to approach the family court for divorce.
Commenting on the judgment, senior Supreme Court advocate and noted women’s rights activist Indira Jaising said, “Though it sounds strange, I am in complete agreement with the high court.”
“At the end of the day an adult woman has a right to decide whom she wants to live with. She can’t be forced to go with her husband against her will,” Jaising said.
In this case, Jaising said, it is clear that the woman was prepared for divorce. She also felt that Manju’s husband had abused the habeas corpus petition because such petitions were generally filed when somebody is actually missing.
Asked whether it amounted to adultery, Jaising clarified that the woman could not be prosecuted for this offence under the law. As for the other man, she said, “it seems he is ready to face that”. National Commission for Women Chairperson Girija Vyas said that although it seemed like an important judgment, she could not comment on it since she had not seen it yet.
Manoj Chaudhry, the counsel for Manju and Suresh, had earlier rejected as baseless the allegations that Manju had been kept in illegal confinement by Suresh.
He said that the duo had been living together by their free will and that the relationship had begun even before Manju had got married.
Whether a woman can live with her lover(especially without the consent of her husband? Misuse of gender-biased ?
Why the wife is not convicted? As because wife is husband’s property?(IPC)
Manusmriti: The Laws of Manu IX And Indian Laws(British made) are same view ;
1. I will now propound the eternal laws for a husband and his wife who keep to the path of duty, whether they are united or separated.
2. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one's control.
3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.
4. Reprehensible is the father who gives not (his daughter in marriage) at the proper time; reprehensible is the husband who approaches not (his wife in due season), and reprehensible is the son who does not protect his mother after her husband has died.
5. Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.
The traditional Indian women are brought up thinking that the Husbands house is her own. Why a woman is is not taught in
Why is a woman brought up thinking she can like only live like a parasite on the husband?
Who is responsible for planting such non sensible teachings in the minds of innocent girls?
It is the parents of the child. This tactic has been has been used for generations by parents of daughters just to absolve and deny them right in their paternal property. This argument has also been used by Indian courts and Indian wives for decades when they claim maintenance from husbands in courts. This argument works for the wife, her parents and also for the feminists. The Husband in
Indian Penal Code, Section 497. Adultery
Whoever has s*xual 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 s*xual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor.
• IPC Sec 497: Makes it an offence for a man to have s*xual intercourse with the wife of another man without the latter’s consent
• The offence is punishable with maximum five years' jail term.
• The wife is never an accused and cannot be punished even as an abettor
Please understand that I am not condemning anyone in any way. I didn't write this article to condemn anyone, truly.