‘Jail term for adultery does not make sense’

‘Jail term for adultery does not make sense’

News:
1. Five years jail imprisonment for adultery does not sound any sense, Chief Justice of India observed recently.

Important facts:

1. The five judge bench of the apex court gave the following arguments on countering the submission made by the Centre that adultery should remain in Indian Penal Code (IPC).
⦁ The bench observed that adultery is a civil wrong and not qualify to be called a criminal offence because an adulterous relationship is carried on with the consent of the woman.
⦁ The court observed that “protecting the marriage is the responsibility of the couple involved. If one of them fails, there is a civil remedy available to the other.
⦁ The court also observed that there might be cases in which adultery was a consequence of a broken marriage.
⦁ There might be cases in which husband could foist a case of adultery of his estranged wife’s paramour to trouble her, court observed.
⦁ Section 497 gives a husband the exclusive right to prosecute his wife’s lover. A similar right is not conferred on a wife to prosecute the woman with whom her husband has committed adultery.
⦁ The provision does not confer any right on the wife to prosecute her husband for adultery.
⦁ Section 497 does not take into account cases in which the husband has sexual relations with an unmarried woman.

2.  Meaning of Adultery:

⦁ Adultery is a voluntary consensual relationship between a married individual and someone who is not his/her lawful spouse.
⦁ Section 497 of the IPC defines adultery as “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 case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.”
⦁ There has been a long dispute over the constitutional validity of Section 497.