Skip to main content

ADULTERY

 


                                              ADULTERY


INTRODUCTION

The word Adultery is derived from a French word adulterium which means to corrupt. Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with a person other than the offender’s husband or wife. Adultery is a ground for divorce and judicial separation in Hindu laws (section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) and Muslim laws. Before the IPC was enacted adultery was not an offence in India either for men or women. It was also not included in the first draft of the penal code, however, the second law commission added it to the IPC. 

SECTION 497 OF IPC

According to section 497 of Indian Penal code, 1860 Adultery means, “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 the offence of 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 a case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 497

1) Sexual intercourse with a married woman- a man having sexual intercourse with a married woman with her consent is an essential ingredient of adultery. The section indicts sexual intercourse by a man, who is the wife of another man. The factum of lawful marriage must be strictly proved. Sexual intercourse with a prostitute, an unmarried woman, or a widow, therefore does not amount to adultery under IPC.

2) knowledge- in order to be brought within the purview of this section, a man should not only have intercourse with a married woman but also he must know or have a reason to believe that such woman is the wife of another man. 

3) Consent of husband- another requirement of law is that adultery should not be done by the consent or connivance of the husband. This based on the legal maxim volenti non fit injuria means what is consented to cannot injure. Such consent can be implied or express.

4) Should not constitute rape- consent of the women is primary. If the accused has sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman, then it is a much graver offence and would amount to rape. The consent of the husband is immaterial here. 

DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY

In cases like Sowmithri Vishnu vs. Union of India, Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. UOI and in V Revathi vs. UOI, section 497 was held valid. In these cases it was held that the provision (section 497) is for the beneficial interest of women. It only punishes an outsider, who invades the matrimonial sanctity.

In 2018 in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, Supreme Court held adultery unconstitutional, because section 497 was arbitrary, irrational and it violates Article 14 of the Indian constitution. The issues discussed in the case are, the first issue is that, the offence committed only by a man who had sexual intercourse with the wife of another man is being discussed and women cannot be punished as an abettor under the section, instead man is considered to be a seducer. The second issue is that only the husband could complain against adultery, adulterous man’s wife had no such right. Under section 198 of crpc it only gives power to husband to give complaint against adultery on his absence whoever is taking care of the wife can file the complaint, wife is not considered as an aggrieved person under section 198. The third issue in the case is that if the adultery is done by the consent of the husband then it is not considered as an offence under section 497 if IPC. 

The section 497 of IPC does not protect the sanctity of marriage and it only protects the proprietary rights of the husband. Thus in this case the former chief justice Dipak Misra held adultery as unconstitutional.

CONCLUSION

Now in India adultery is not considered as a crime. The landmark judgement in joseph shines case held adultery as unconstitutional and decriminalized adultery. The court only decriminalized the act but it is still a ground for divorce. Changes are the need of the hour thus the changes in adultery also one among them .the changes in adultery not only decriminalized the act but also made a significant step towards equality.


By,

Asha Sebastian.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree