Adultery was the symptom for broken marriages not the reason for broken marriages. Many people don’t know about adultery and its law. Adultery is defined as a voluntary sexual intercourse by a married person with a partner other than his/her spouse. The legal definition of adultery varies in different jurisdictions and statutes. Adultery in India is a criminal offence and hence there are provisions related to adultery Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 497.

For instance, earlier adultery law, if Simran is married to Ram and Simran has an affair with Shyam then Ram can bring charges against Shyam but Simran will not be charged under this offence. New adultery law no one will be charged for having sexual intercourse with any other person other than their husband or wife with their consent.

Adultery was the main reason for broken marriages. It was not a crime but still, it grounds for divorce. Respect for sexual autonomy must be emphasized. Ability to make sexual choices is essential to human liberty. Outside their marriages, helpless poor husbands, with their wounded honour, being unable to send the stranger in their marriage to prison. Couples cannot use adultery as a ground for divorce if they lived together as a couple for six months after the infidelity was known about.

They were raised when the Shah Bano judgment was passed, raised when section 377 was challenged, when women argued they must have equal rights over the property of their parents, when they protested against being burnt alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands, when a law which criminalises married women being tortured by their husbands and their families was passed-the history of the ‘marriage-and-society-will-die-if-this injustice-is-removed’ argument is long and disgraceful. Its present isn’t too bright either, the same arguments are being raised when it is being argued that marital rape must be criminalised, and its future isn’t great either-wait for the time when the logical next step-right to marry for all Indians, irrespective of their sexuality-is granted. Many Indians were not even aware the law existed.

The law is designed entirely for a man’s world, even though it is harsher on men than women. Under Section 497 of the IPC, inherited from the British, adultery. Colonel Sleeman opposed the reasoning of the Law Commissioners on this subject. He was of the view that it adultery was not made a crime; the adulterous wives will alone bear the brunt of the rage of their husbands. Indians were so barbaric that if not allowed to send people to prison they would poison their own wives, the Britishers believed. Are Indian still that barbaric?

The Supreme Court thinks not. My favourite sentence in the judgment is one written by Justice Rohinton Nariman: “The statement that stability of marriages is not and ideal to be scorned, can scarcely be applied to this provision, as we have seen that marital stability is not the object for which this provision was enacted. What was the object of criminalising adultery, across periods of history and across the world? The belief that men own women’s bodies.

Women were property. If someone else used this property, he was stealing. In England, once upon a time, the law said that such a stranger to the marriage must either compensate or get him a new wife. Replace the damaged goods. The judgment identifies and condemns all this. Instead of adultery leading to an unhappy marriage, it could be the result of an unhappy marriage, the judgment posits.

I disagree with this particular framing. Adultery can well happen in a ‘happy marriage ‘too. Intimacy is complicated and so are human beings, emotions-sexual and otherwise- are delicate things. When this partner wants to feel desired, what happens is ‘adultery’. Sex outside marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that the marriage is unhealthy and monogamous sexual relationships are no guarantee for an ‘unhappy marriage’-whatever that is. In any case, it was a colossal injustice to send people to prison for this. Wounded by your partner’s actions? In summary: Thou shall no longer go to prison for committing adultery.

Conclusion
As a law student I think earlier Husband treated their wives as slaves. There are not the masters of their wives. So adultery is useful for such spouse who did not got proper respect from their marriage. But its bane for those husband and wife who being loyal with each other. And still got cheated by one of them. Marriage is the relationship between two people. Then why it became the need for the husband or wife to seek for the third person?

What’s struck down: Section 497 of Indian penal code said that: “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is…the wife of another man, without the consent of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery”.

The problem: It treated women as victim of the offences and as “property” of her husband. It was not an offence. If a man had sexual intercourse with a women after getting after getting her husband consent.

After the judgement: Adultery can be a ground for divorce but it’s no more a criminal offence attracting up to 5 years jail term.

Govt’s problem: Centre in its affidavit before the apex court had said that it would be against the sanctity of marriage to dilute the offence of adultery.

Keep in mind: Though adultery per se is no longer a crime, if any aggrieved spouse commits suicide because of partner’s adultery. It could be treated as an abetment to suicide- a crime.

Adultery can take you to the court, not to the jail
Adultery was the symptom for broken marriages not the reason for broken marriages. Many people don’t knew about adultery and its law. Adultery is defined as a voluntary sexual intercourse by a married person with a partner other than his/her spouse. The legal definition of adultery varies in different jurisdictions and statutes. Adultery in India is a criminal offence and hence there are provisions related to adultery Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 497.

For instance, earlier adultery law, if Simran is married to Ram and Simran has an affair with Shyam then Ram can bring charges against shyam but Simran will not be charged under this offence. New adultery law no one will be charged for having sexual intercourse with any other person other than their husband or wife with their consent .

Adultery was the main reason for broken marriages. It was not a crime but still, it grounds for divorce. Respect for sexual autonomy must be emphasized. Ability to make sexual choices is essential to human liberty. Outside their marriages, helpless poor husbands, with their wounded honour, being unable to send the stranger in their marriage to prison. Couples cannot use adultery as a ground for divorce if they lived together as a couple for six months after the infidelity was known about.

They were raised when the Shah Bano judgment was passed, raised when section 377 was challenged, when women argued they must have equal rights over the property of their parents, when they protested against being burnt alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands, when a law which criminalises married women being tortured by their husbands and their families was passed-the history of the ‘marriage-and-society-will-die-if-this injustice-is-removed’ argument is long and disgraceful. Its present isn’t too bright either, the same arguments are being raised when it is being argued that marital rape must be criminalised, and its future isn’t great either-wait for the time when the logical next step-right to marry for all Indians, irrespective of their sexuality-is granted. Many Indians were not even aware the law existed. The law is designed entirely for a man’s world, even though it is harsher on men than women. Under Section 497 of the IPC, inherited from the British, adultery. Colonel Sleeman opposed the reasoning of the Law Commissioners on this subject.

He was of the view that it adultery was not made a crime; the adulterous wives will alone bear the brunt of the rage of their husbands. Indians were so barbaric that if not allowed to send people to prison they would poison their own wives, the Britishers believed. Are Indian still that barbaric? The Supreme Court thinks not. My favourite sentence in the judgment is one written by Justice Rohinton Nariman: “ The statement that stability of marriages is not and ideal to be scorned, can scarcely be applied to this provision, as we have seen that marital stability is not the object for which this provision was enacted . What was the object of criminalising adultery, across periods of history and across the world? The belief that men own women’s bodies. Women were property. If someone else used this property, he was stealing. In England, once upon a time, the law said that such a stranger to the marriage must either compensate or get him a new wife. Replace the damaged goods. The judgment identifies and condemns all this. Instead of adultery leading to an unhappy marriage, it could be the result of an unhappy marriage, the judgment posits.

I disagree with this particular framing. Adultery can well happen in a ‘happy marriage ‘too. Intimacy is complicated and so are human beings, emotions-sexual and otherwise- are delicate things. When this partner wants to feel desired, what happens is ‘adultery’. Sex outside marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that the marriage is unhealthy and monogamous sexual relationships are no guarantee for an ‘unhappy marriage’-whatever that is. In any case, it was a colossal injustice to send people to prison for this. Wounded by your partner’s actions? In summary: Thou shall no longer go to prison for committing adultery.