LIVE Course on Transfer Property Law | Price Hike in 4 days | Grab it now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

'Live-in acceptable, why not adultery?'

 

'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 Bombay high court to challenge the constitutional validity of penal provisions against adulterous relationships in a changing society where even "live-in relationships are being legally recognised".

 

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 India for the last 150 years since the introduction of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1860, and punishes only the man with up to five years' imprisonment. In several countries, including the UK, adultery is not a criminal offence.

 

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." Krishna, also pointed out the SC has in the past held that Section 497 cannot be declared unconstitutional and stated that the law was a matter of policy.

 

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.

 

Krishna said Mehta was attempting to delay the criminal proceedings initiated against him in 2009. He had moved the HC last September to have the criminal case quashed but withdrew his petition later only to now challenge the Constitutional validity of the offence. Singapuri's lawyer said the petition was nothing but an attempt to delay or thwart the criminal trial. The judges asked which was the next date before the magistrate.

 

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.

 

OLD NEWS:

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.

INFO: https://mynation.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/married-woman-can-live-with-her-lover-says-court/

 

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 India that whatever she earns with the sweat of her brow is only hers to keep. She has no rights on whatever ever her husband makes unless she has made a significant enough contribution to the marriage through an extended period of time.

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 India is expected to bear the burden of the wife after marriage in every way while her parents who have given birth to the girl child can wash their hands off. In India the wife herself is not expected to taker even her own burden and law states that she has to be carried around for the rest of her life by her husband. The interesting thing to note here is that the right of the wife is limited only to the husband’s property and credit but not his debit. The wife will legally have right into the money, property and credit of the husband while she has no responsibility to bear completely or even a part of his debt. These laws worked about 100 years earlier when women were uneducated and child marriages were common. ManuSmriti was followed by both the husband and wife alike.

 

LEGALLY SPEAKING;

 

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.

 

INFO:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Live-in-acceptable-why-not-adultery/articleshow/7375970.cms

 



Learning

 39 Replies


(Guest)

When Indian constitution was framed,marriage was a very sacred institution then.Live in relations were unheard of.

So the fundamental rights did not say that "right to live " also means right to live with another partner,despite being married.

 

The framers were unaware that Indian society will stoop down to such a level,that people will cheat parners and have live in relations,or promote them on LCI,through their agents like Arup.

Otherwise they would have specially mentioned that right to live doesn't mean that you do so,despite being married.This is what I can conclude

 

Remember,with rights also come duties.

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     14 February 2011

Originally posted by :Meenal Bahadur
"
When Indian constitution was framed,marriage was a very sacred institution then.Live in relations were unheard of.
The framers were unaware that Indian society will stoop down to such a level,that people will cheat parners and have live in relations,or promote them on LCI,through their agents like Arup.
Otherwise they would have specially mentioned that right to live doesn't mean that you do so,despite being married.This is what I can conclude 
"

 @ Meenal

1. As per the old tales of Indian civilization there are many types of marriages and one of the popular forms was gandhrav vivah…………


2.
You ever heard of gandhrav vivah?. Ask elders in your own family and get corrected before quoting COI and wisdom of its framers so blatently. In this mold of matrimony the duo uses to consider each other as husband wife in front of god and keeps this as a clandestine. The advanced version of the same is popularly today termed as live-in relationship. So you see in the same society to which framers of our great Constitution gave us the COI, this relationship had its traces in its culture.

2 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     14 February 2011

Uncle,thanks for the gr8 gr8 knowledge

Ambika (NA)     14 February 2011

Now where is the authority on Live in( married man with unmarried woman live in wala I mean)....!

Venu Kizhakkethil (Manager)     14 February 2011

No one has  the right to object to two consenting adults having s*xual relationships - not even the husband / wife of the couple concerned. Section 497 therefore deserve to be declared unconstitutional.

 

By indulging in s*xual relation with another man / woman, the married individual is breaking trust and marital vows and therefore it should be a valid ground for annulment of the marriage. But to make it a criminal offence is an undue restriction of the freedom of choice of individual.

 

Section 497 treats women as 'property' of man. It confers authority on the husband to give consent for wife to have s*xual relation with another man! It is okay to have s*x with another man with  husbands consent but it is a criminal offence to do so without obtaining husband's consent. Husband can sanction or veto just as owner of a property has the right to let / lease a property. What a shame in a country that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender!

 

Another provision that needs to be reviewed is the restitution of conjugal rights. Just as Husband / wife has a right to have s*x, both have the right to refuse to have s*x also. Marriage does not mean that one can have s*x without consent of the spouse. That being so, it is wrong for law to compel man / woman to have s*x in the name of marital rights. Marriage may imply a long-term consent for s*x but it cannot take away the individual right to withdraw such consent provided he / she is ready to accept its natural consequence - annullment of marriage.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     14 February 2011

Refusing Habeas Corpus in such a situation is startling and amounts to re writing of the statues replacing the Legislative mandates by the Judges opinion. I guess Indra Jaising is very much aware of the Delhi High Court Judgment way back in 1984 where the Court found it necessary to observe that "Introduction of Cold Principles of Constitutional Law in the Home is most inappropriate and it is like a bull in China shop" "It will prove to be a  ruthless destroyer of the marriage institutions and all that it stands for".  In the present Judgment involving Adultery, whether cold, hot or warm the Court should have issued writ of  Habeas corpus, as it is not a question of strange or startling but a question of legal or illegal. I guess the court is inclining more to T.sareetha case of 1983 of Andhra Pradesh High Court, and if so there is going to be judicial catastrophe in the Country.

Venu Kizhakkethil (Manager)     14 February 2011

I agree with Mr. Assumi that the Courts should not substitute its wisdom for Legislative mandates. So long as the Legislaive mandate is clear, courts are bound to obey them.

 

Courts view writ petitions in the light of Fundamental rights and give primacy to that while considering Writ Petitions. Perhaps the HC should have cited existence of alternate legal remedies as reason for dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition instead of going on analysing legal provisions and denying clear legal provisions without declaring them unconstitutional and thus overstepping its authority.

 

But writ jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court is special discretionary power. Perhaps the petitioner made the wrong move by filing writ petition instead of moving appropriate court for restitution of his conjugal rights or file FIR case against the man for adultery under Sec. 497. When such clear remedies exist in law, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court.

 

When you adopt the wrong procedure to get remedy, you get wrong remedy.

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     14 February 2011

Originally posted by :Venu Kizhakkethil
"
No one has  the right to object to two consenting adults having s*xual relationships - not even the husband / wife of the couple concerned. Section 497 therefore deserve to be declared unconstitutional.

 

By indulging in s*xual relation with another man / woman, the married individual is breaking trust and marital vows and therefore it should be a valid ground for annulment of the marriage. But to make it a criminal offence is an undue restriction of the freedom of choice of individual.

 

Section 497 treats women as 'property' of man. It confers authority on the husband to give consent for wife to have s*xual relation with another man! It is okay to have s*x with another man with  husbands consent but it is a criminal offence to do so without obtaining husband's consent. Husband can sanction or veto just as owner of a property has the right to let / lease a property. What a shame in a country that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender!

 

Another provision that needs to be reviewed is the restitution of conjugal rights. Just as Husband / wife has a right to have s*x, both have the right to refuse to have s*x also. Marriage does not mean that one can have s*x without consent of the spouse. That being so, it is wrong for law to compel man / woman to have s*x in the name of marital rights. Marriage may imply a long-term consent for s*x but it cannot take away the individual right to withdraw such consent provided he / she is ready to accept its natural consequence - annullment of marriage.
"

 

very matured thoughts.

there's a saying,

"kahna asaan hai...karna mushkil hai"(saying is easy,doing is difficult)

sir/madam,

i have to ask you a  few million dollar questions based on below situations,which you ought to answer,POINTWISE WITH A HAND ON YOUR HEART.

imagine these situations are happening in your own life:

 

1. If you are a married man/woman,and your partner leaves you,starts live in with sum1,will you be happy that he/s she is enjoying his/her constitutional rights?

 

99% you will say...oh yes! i will allow him/her,because he/she is not my property

still reply to me by swearing in the name of your god,instead of acting too broadminded..

 

2. why do you think marriage treats partner as a property?wot makes you think so?

isn't it a way to get a life long companion?

or is it only to fulfill s*xual lusts,for which they need to have different people,for enjoyment..

if your answer is yes,you'll be comfortable that ur partner is fulfilling his lusts wid sum1 else,in which he has ur full support??

 

3. shud there be a dividing line b/w rights and moral duties?

or anything is fair,as far as fulfilling lust is concerned?

 

4. if rights are the only main consideration,wot abt banning marriages altogether?then the right to live can be practised better,as no one will be committed to the other person?so no complications arising,had the person been married...wot do u say?

 

5. if rights and only rights are everything,children shud leave their parents in old age homes and live independently,because they have the ."right to live"..

 

6) a person wortking in a company owned by you shud take leaves,as and when he pleases without ur permission,because he has the right to enjoy his personal life.asking you repeatedly means he's being ur slave...wot do u say?

 

7) parents who give birth to a child shud throw him out,if he gets handicapped,because they have the right to live peacefully,minus any pressures to care for a handicapped kid 4ever

8.)going by your statements,your parents were each others' properties,your grandparents and greatparents as well.....there was no companionship.....wot do u say?

9) lastly,if you have a daughter/son/brother/sister whose spouse starts a live in relation wid sum1,you will be v.happy that he's enjoying his rights and you will actually go and bless the couple,and also decorate their suhaag sej happily...after all you are helpng them enjoy their rights.....WILL YOU?

 

So,is it still easier said than done

 

OR

 

Easier done than said?

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     14 February 2011

" Section 497 therefore deserve to be declared unconstitutional."

VERY APPROPRIATE DEMAND.

 

" Section 497 treats women as 'property' of man. "

VERY CORRECT.

" Another provision that needs to be reviewed is the restitution of conjugal rights"

SORRY, IT IS WRONG.

RCR IS A TEST ONLY. RCR DO NOT COMPLE THE PARTY TO RESTITUTE THE CONJUGAL LIFE.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     14 February 2011

I can not accept that woman are a chatel of the husband rather a better half of the husband and there should be mutual respect for one another. Invasion of woman's body is invasion of husband's body vice versa.

2 Like

Chandalika Tandav (Tandav expert )     14 February 2011

Roshani, you are too good!

1 Like

(Guest)
Originally posted by :N.K.Assumi
"

I can not accept that woman are a chatel of the husband rather a better half of the husband and there should be mutual respect for one another. Invasion of woman's body is invasion of husband's body vice versa.
"

You are right.

Only s*xually lustful people can think of the spouse as a property,not as a better half.By now we all can make out who belong to this category of people in LCI,who think of s*x,s*x and only s*x 24/7.

 

*****************************************************



" Section 497 therefore deserve to be declared unconstitutional."

VERY APPROPRIATE DEMAND.

 

" Section 497 treats women as 'property' of man. "

VERY CORRECT.

" Another provision that needs to be reviewed is the restitution of conjugal rights"

SORRY, IT IS WRONG.

RCR IS A TEST ONLY. RCR DO NOT COMPLE THE PARTY TO RESTITUTE THE CONJUGAL LIFE."

 

 

So,here he comes again.The most wanted!

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     14 February 2011

THERE IS A DIFFRENCE BETWEEN 'ADULTERY IN GENERAL SENSE' AND 'ADULTERY IN LEGAL SENSE'

WE ALL KNOW THE MEANING OF 'ADULTERY IN GENERAL SENSE'  BUT UNDERSTANDING THE 'ADULTERY IN LEGAL SENSE' IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT. PLEASE READ IPC S 497 & IT'S CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF CRPC.

Chandalika Tandav (Tandav expert )     14 February 2011

Venu ji , 

Agree with you that men consider women, especially wives as thier properties.. but giving partners legal sanction to indulege in extra marital relationships would be more subjugatig for women than for men. After all the foundation of a home is not extra marital affairs and freedom to enjoy them but love and commitment without over focussing on lust part...well well love changes...but then it is not like changing one dress or hat for that of another...it affects whom more? And why? 

I think with our mature understanding you would like to ponder on these questions +the questions Roshni has raised in her query...

A gender neutral law in a man's world I am sure,  with your understanding you will be able to see its deeper implications. 

Use and Throw relationships would then have a legal sanction...and who are used and thrown more often?? Who is considered as a s*xual commodity so often?? 

May be you will differ, but make a contexual analysis ..


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query