IPC 498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman

498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman.--Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptttion for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

( Now see my problem - https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Woman-threatening-our-family-by-having-affair-with-dad-37407.asp) 

SEE THE FOOLISHNESS OF LAW DRAFTSMEN...IF THEY HAD USED THE WORD SPOUSE INSTEAD OF MARRIED WOMAN..THEN EVEN INNOCENT WOMEN HAVE BEEN SAVED ... AND THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS SECTION FOR BOTH GENDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED...

BUT ALAS..IT ONLY HELPS ONE GENDER NOW...

AND IT CANT HELP ME.

priya do you agree with what i've written?

ya zimmer ofcourse i agree that laws are made wrong...and also that they are not amended to bring in the required intention of the act when times change and law becomes useless.. similaris the case where Wife commiting suicide and the concubine is not held guilty by courts and only husband is! They both are parties knowingly to the crime.

Laws seems to have been made to bring money-flow by the Govt. than to bring equillibrium in the society. If anyone files a complaint with a malicious intent and with a view to harrass another, then what protection does the accused has in this case? I feel roughly around 30% cases are false which include all category of allegations like rape, dv act, 498a, criminal intimidation, sc/st act etc.

The Govt. does not want the citizens to grow or to think anything else than worries, sorrows and puzzles. How will the country grow when citizenz are deeply rotten by the poor and c-graded laws??

//peace

/Saurabh.V

IPC 498 is next to IPC 497. The difference is presumed consent of the woman in 497 and use of force under 498. As I stated in my post, dated 4th June,  IPC 497 was purposely drafted originally by Lord Macaulay that way. The Supreme Court has given it Constitutional validy.

The laws are intentionally made gender biased in favour of the female.