s.497

Student

the IPC compiled in 1860 in its section 497 has defined the Adultery very clearly and the punishment is also stated. The punishment seems to have an inconsistency with the Art.14 of the constitution by restricting the equality on the basis of gender. But it was held by the apex court in  1985 that it is not a violation of Art.14.

But this is rejuvenating to reconsider the same point by disputing over the decree. That the activity coming under the purview of Adultery comprises an element of the consential s*xual intercourse where there is equal participation of man and woman!!!!!!!!!!

The question is that whether the woman isnt liable for defiling the sanctity of the matrimonial system?????

The element of consent proves the participation of the woman with general will and she is not even given the punishment of abetment...

IS THIS THE PRIVILEGE GIVEN FOR THE WOMAN BY THE ENDOWMENT OF LAW???????????????

 
Reply   
 

congratulations for raising this question, eagerly awaiting to see the reply of others.

 
Reply   
 



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 not be punishable as an abettor.

 
Reply   
 

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 not be punishable as an abettor.

 
Reply   
 
Medical Value Travel

1. A woman cannot be punished for adultery even if she is involved in an illicit relationship and is treated as the victim under law, according to the National Commission for Women that has shot down proposals in this regard.

2. The Commission had been asked by the Centre wayback in 2007 to review Section 497, which does not envisage prosecution of the wife by the husband for adultery.

3. The section provides expressly that the wife shall not be punishable even as an abettor based on the reasoning that the wife, who is involved in an illicit relationship with another man, is a victim and not the author of the crime.

4. According to NCW sources, the Commission does not feel that by merely prescribing punishment for women by amending Section 497, the marriage can be protected or saved. I am yet to see one comment from NCW how they come to this "national consensus conclusion" :-)

5. The NCW has forwarded its recommendations to the government, in which it has stated that considering the relatively socially-disempowered position of women, the Commission suggests no amendments to Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Tell me lookign at any major age women around any town of India do one feels that they are "socially-disempowered" in any respect ?

6. The existing provision in the IPC is based on the mindset that the wife is a personal possession of the husband, who is the sole aggrieved person in an incident of adultery. Now how do you come to such wague assumption that a wife of an Indian husband is his personal possession? Doesnot Indian wife have their own life and liberty the way divorce stats are shooting the roof in recent decade what does it sjow who is having whose personal possession!

7. The Commission has, however, recommended suitable amendments to Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which as of now disqualifies the wife of an unfaithful husband from prosecuting him for his promiscuous behaviour.

8. It has told the government that as the wife already can take action against her husband under various other legal provisions, such as Section 498A of the IPC, there is no reason that she should be debarred from initiating prosecution under Section 198 of CRPC. Thanks Indian God's that NCW has given largese to Indian men to be less prosecuted by one less Section of IPC when 498a IPC was not enough to cause havoc to family dog to 14 months of newborn to be put behind prison without any explanation. I am per se relieved of this gifts from NCW to the Indian Husbands.

9. The wife, in such cases, ought to be the person aggrieved and competent to file a complaint under Section 198. Yes, it is only the Indian Wife who have right to be aggrieved and where are the duties of Indian wife?

10 . In another important recommendation, the Commission has said adultery should be treated as a civil wrong and not a criminal offence. It is of the view that there may be many instances where the woman wants to save the marriage and sees the adulterous relationship as an aberration. This I  call far sighted safety clause to name such wrongs to be under civil wrongs least law changes with time then harsher punishments that comes with using IPC is safeguarded for women.

Bare act even I know can we know your take on what on devil's mind is "national consensus" on punishing women (wife) under adultry Law ?

Have you ever been involved into RTI activity asking a particular Department / Minstery of GOI to give true copy of complete file on a particular subject with notes / drafts / recommendations / comments from general public etc. etc. Various wings of GOI Departments publish in national newspaper such call for comments from general public and clear answer one can find there and returnign back to this subject now you know why NCW didnot allow passing amendement in S. 497 IPC ??

So that we can debate about it  is the answer.

It is not the duty and responsibilities of layman who is not even member of the Bar like me to remind 'professionals' of their social obligations it is self taking subjects of national interest for a "common cause" for a better Indian society just like if you read my so called analysis of "multiple maintenance litigation" under Family Law Forum you will understand where society in general is leading to and why ther eis a overload of workload in Judiciary. It is just to please certain sections of Indian women nothing else.

Sorry for speaking my heart out. I do not mean them to sound personal but I am a  aggrieved Indian husband  as stated in my profile so truth is always harsh when I see such civil / criminal wrongs happenign around me.
Rgds,


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

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 not be punishable as an abettor.

Adultery.

The combination of words ‘offence of adultery’ defined here and ‘punishment’ also fixed by this act here.

Whoever has s*xual intercourse with a person

By the word ‘whoever’ and by the word ‘with a person’- the act intentionally want to say that the act is gender neutral under art 15(1). But the next line shows the real face of the act.

‘intercourse with a person’ – means intercourse with a person who is wife of another man, means the said intercourse is done by a person,

(a) not with a man,

(b) not with a woman,

(c) but with a wife.

who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man

‘wife of another man’ – by this word, the act tells that, the male did intercourse with such a woman who is known to him as wife of another man.

The word “wife”, denotes here, a person, who is female by gender and such a female who is a sub category of women. The word 'wife’ does not mean the whole of women. It is a category within a category. A “category within a category” is not allowed by the Supreme Court and also there is no such constitutional provision also. Hence it is unconstitutional.

Here I wants to inform all the concerned that, the same explanation, applicable to the word ‘wife’ under the so called famous sec 498a of IPC.

without the consent or connivance of that man,

which means that, the same intercourse is allowed/ legal act/not an illegal act, if husband consented or connivance. Thus, this act has no relation with morality, on the contrary this act makes a husband the sole proprietor, of his wife’s body. Surprising!

such s*xual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape,

this line clearly indicates that the said woman, had the full consent on the s*xual intercourse with the male, whom she knows that, he is not her husband.

is guilty of the offence of adultery,

The above is the definition of – ‘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

Punishment for the offence of adultery confirmed here.

In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Under the IPC, the said wife must be charged, under sec 497 & sec 120b and some other section of IPC may be applicable. But this line of the act, keep the one respondent out of touch of the punishment.

‘Why it is such? Why a male offender will be punished by five years of jail, or with fine, or with both, when the counterpart/co partner of the offence, will be left as not guilty of the offence?

This question raised several times, but the Supreme Court and High courts failed to answer appropriately.

 
Reply   
 
Student

Dear sir,
                              i agree with all your points which is the feedback of existing situations where the society itself is boasting about the rubbish privileges for women and male chauvinism. But as an affected person and a litigant man cant you approach the apex court regarding this issue although they were a continuous failure in determining the violation of elements of the natural justice and becoming a brusque; and i now feel this s.497 ludicrous. Wishing all the best for your proceedings and to clutch the final justice........
 
Reply   
 

Mr s.s.

you may approach to the supreme court as your fundamental rights are adversely affected. For the same and equal act one is guilty and another not guilty, this is against the fundamental rights. Prayer u/a 14,15,21 & 32 of coi.

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

That section 497 should be efface from the statue book.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Forensics & Evidence     |    x