Why Courts In India Consider Adultery As A Relic Of The Past

While same-sex marriage is not legally reco-gn-i--sed in India, there is no statutory or constitutio-nal provision restricting it either, say legal so-u--r---ces. The court observed, “Intimacies of mar-riage including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and whom to marry lie outside the control of the state.”

While the courts permitted live-in relations-h-ips of same-sex couples, there was another landmark judgment which decriminalised a section of the Adultery Law, allowing estranged or other heterosexual couples in adulterous relationships to live without fear of penal action. The decriminalising of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) also indicated that there has to be a shift in the mindset that looks upon the husband as master and the wife as his commodity.

In September 2018, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalised adultery. The five-judge bench of the Apex Court comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, were unanim-ous that the adultery law was “unconstitutional” and deserved to go. The court stated that the law that made adultery an offence was archaic, discr-iminated against women and was a clear violat-ion of fundamental rights.

In the Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018) jud-g-ment, the SC also affirmed the rights of wom-en to exercise their sexual freedom in pers-o-nal spaces. The court had declared Section 497 of the IPC—whi-ch gives the husband the exclusive right to pro-secute his wife’s lover, even as the wife was denied the right to prosecute the woman with whom her husband has committed adultery—as unconstitutional. CJI Misra then observed that Section 497 treated a married woman as nothing more than her husband’s pro-perty, as adultery is only an off-ence when it happens without the consent of a married man, with the woman having no say in the matter. He also said that adultery may not be the cause of an unhappy marriage, but could be the result of an unhappy marriage.

For several years, Tina (name changed to conc-eal identity) had lived in fear that her estranged husband could send her to prison. They had been separated for nearly 11 years, but not divo-r-ced. Though both had other partners and were in live-in relationships, Tina’s estranged husband had made the divorce proceedings extremely acrimonious, contesting and challenging every step of the way. The muck-raking from both sid-es was so terrible that the lawyers from both sid-es had quit midway into the court hearings.

Speaking to Outlook, Tina says she is not bothered about pursuing the case, but won’t withd-raw it. Since the lawyers exited, neither Tina nor her estranged husband has got new legal help. “I have stopped pursuing the case. He is so angry that he finds some new allegation every time. Bas-ically, he does not want me to get the divorce. He does not want me to get married again. I do not want a rupee from him, I have my own mon-ey. Since my partner and I do not want to get married and prefer a live-in relationship, I am not even pursuing the divorce. Let it just be there,” she tells Outlook.

Until some years ago, her estranged husband had threatened to get her arrested for adultery. “He too has a live-in partner, but he would keep telling me from time to time that I could not do anything to him. I did not know the law, so I alw-ays lived in fear of going to jail,” she says. It was only after she was involved in a new relationship that she sought legal help on understanding the adultery law. “My friend is a lawyer and it is she who told me that I cannot go to jail. Now I am breathing easy,” she adds.

For those like Tina, the 2018 Supreme Court jud-gment decriminalising Section 497 of the IPC is a huge relief. ?

In his ruling, Justice Chandrachud had obser-ved that autonomy is intrinsic to a dignified hum-an existence and Section 497 denudes wom-en from making choices, holding adultery as a rel-ic of the past. ?

The Apex Court had set aside three of its earl-ier rulings when decriminalising Section 497. The Adultery Law was first challenged in 1951, in the Yusuf Aziz vs. State of Bombay case. The arg-um-ent had then centred on Section 497—which gov-erned the adultery law—stating that it disc-ri-min-ated against men by not making women equ-ally culpable in an adulterous relationship. The petitioner’s argument was that the adultery law gave the women a licence to commit the crime. Three years later in 1954, the SC had ruled that Section 497 was valid. It had observed that the said sect-ion of the IPC did not give women the licence to commit adultery. ?

In 1971, the 42nd Report of the Law Commi-ss-ion of India had recommended amendments to the adultery law. Several years later, the Mali-m-ath Committee on Criminal Law Reforms (2003) too had recommended reforms to the contentious section of the IPC and to make it gender neutral. ?

The second judgment of the SC came in 1985, in the Sowmithri Vishnu vs. Union of India case. In this ruling, the SC had held that women need not be included as an aggrieved party in the name of making that law equal-handed. The SC had also explained the reasons why women sho-uld not be involved in the prosecution in cases of adultery. ?

The third SC judgment was in 1988, in the Rev-a--thy vs. Union of India case. The SC then obser-ved that not including women in prosecution in cases of adultery promoted “social good”. The rul-ing offered couples a chance to “make up” and keep the sanctity of the marriage intact.

Speaking to Outlook, Pramod Patil—an advoc-ate practicing at the Bombay high court—said decri-m-inalising Section 497 was a step in the right dir--ection. “Earlier, the husband was the compl-a-i-nant and the paramour of his wife was the accu-sed. In adultery, while the paramour could be pun--ished, the woman couldn’t even be made an abettor. If the paramour had a wife, she too cou-l-dn’t file a complaint against her husb-and. Howe-ver, after decriminalising, the husb-and can’t file a compl-a-i-nt against the paramour. The court has held that they are consenting adu-lts and have the right to choose their partners,” says Patil.