Tag Archives: section 497

Articles

Adultery: Detailed Analysis

Leave a comment

To get daily updates, Join Team Attorneylex’s WhatsApp group. 

Also, check us out on Instagram and Twitter

This article is written by Apoorva Pradhan, a student of Amity Law School, Noida

Abstract

Adultery shows a contention between social pressing factor and singular battle for bliss. Adulterers have consistently experienced society’s objecting disposition towards them. In India, adultery is criminalised under Section 497 IPC. According to criminal law in India, offense of adultery is coordinated just at the ‘pariah’ who abused the sacredness of the marital home when the outcast is a man. Accordingly it sums to gender based segregation in law. In our assessment, duration of this law in present day, requests broad changes and amendments.

Keywords: Adultery, Criminal law, India

Introduction

Adultery is gotten from a French word, about that has developed from the Latin action word, “adulterium”, intends to corrupt.[1] Adultery is characterized as the consensual extramarital sexual relationship that is viewed as offensive on social, religious and, good and prior on the legitimate grounds too.

However adultery is decriminalized, it actually exists as a delinquent go about as it violates social standards which an individual are accepted to be followed.

Since the most recent 158 years, it was treated as a crime however after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Association of India, adultery is decriminalized and remained just a common wrong rather criminal offense. There were two significant conflicts for the decriminalization of adultery. They were:-

This section furnished husbands with the option to indict their wives’ philanderer while wives were denied to grumble against the adulteress of their husbands.

The section was uninformed on the issue of the two-timing demonstration of the spouse.

Adultery is a “deliberate sexual intercourse between a married individual and somebody other than the lawful companion.”

The term starts from the Latin word ad-ulterare (a blend of ad, “at”, and ulter, “above”, “past”, “inverse”, signifying “on the opposite side of the obligation of marriage”). Adultery in a real sense implies sex between a married man or lady and somebody who isn’t their wife or husband. An adulterer is a married man who has intercourse with a lady who isn’t his wife, or a man who has intercourse with another man’s wife while an adulteress is a female adulterer.

Adultery According To Religion

India is a country known for its solidarity in variety. Our country is a secular country where estimations of the relative multitude of religions are similarly regarded. Each religion follows its own perspectives and targets. Be that as it may, in the question of adultery pretty much every religion is profoundly basic. Various religions have various perspectives on adultery yet the centre view stays as before. In each religion, adultery is treated as a wrongdoing. In any case, the types of discipline might shift among religions. It is treated as a delinquent go about as it abuses the strict assumption of each religion.

Since days of yore it is viewed as a wrongdoing on the strict or legitimate ground as well as on the profound ground also.

Conventional Hindu perspectives in regards to adultery are that it makes issue in the society and debasement of family esteem. In Hinduism, marriage is a holy observance, accepted to be intended for seven subsequent births, where both the companions should be faithful to one another. They are accepted not to have a sexual relationship other than their companion.

As per Islam, adultery, rape, and sex which are unlawful are considered as Zina. As per the Quran, Zina is huded wrongdoing for what disciplines are fixed by god. The disciplines range from removal of hands and execution to public lashing to public batter to the point of death. Specifically to adultery, as per Quran, a two-faced individual ought to be stoned to death.

As per the Bible, adultery as a transgression meriting demise for all kinds of people. Adultery is treated as untrustworthy and corrupt and evil for the society.

As indicated by Buddhism, sexual intercourse outside wedlock is a transgression that expands sufferings. In Buddhism, adultery is the third of the five fundamental statutes that one should abstain.

As indicated by Judaism, which is one of the old religions, there is a provision of capital punishment for both adultrer and adulteress.

Adultery According To Law

In India, Section 497 of Indian Penal code (IPC) 1860, characterized adultery as:

“Whoever has sex with an individual who is and whom he knows or has motivation to accept to be the wife of another man, without the assent or intrigue of that man, such sex not adding up to the offense of rape, is blameworthy of the offense of adultery and will be rebuffed with imprisonment of one or the other portrayal for a term which might stretch out to five years, or with fine or with both. In such a case, the wife will not be culpable as an abettor”.

In 2018 section 497 was struck somewhere near Supreme Court in the case Joseph Shine v. Association of India consistently by the constitutional seat of five judges containing Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice Ajay Manikaro Khanwilkar, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra. It was likewise held that in that matter if any oppressed companion ends it all, in light of the proof could be treated as an abetment to self-destruction drawing in section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Nonetheless, however section 497 got decriminalized, it kept on being treated as legitimate ground for divorce as indicated by the pronouncement of the then Chief Justice Deepak Mishra and justice A.M.Khanwilkar in the moment case.

In the moment case, petitioner was Mr. Joseph Shine, a hotelier from Italy, however he was actually unaffected by the law. His request was acknowledged in the perspective on the locus standi (right or ability to bring an activity or to appear in a court) in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases with a goal of government assistance of the society and to get justice the society.

The petitioner contended that the law denies women of the fundamental right to sexual self-sufficiency. While government, then again, contended it as a fundamental element to keep up with the holiness of marriage, albeit additionally perceived section 497 as prejudicial against women and proposed to make the offense of adultery as sexually impartial.

In the case it was held that criminalization had confined the accompanying rights of women:-

  • Right to sexual self-governance as given under Article 21(Right to life) of the constitution.
  • Right to sexual articulation as given under Article 19(Right to opportunity) of the constitution.
  • Right to equality as given under Article 14(Right to equality) of the constitution.
  • Right against separation as given under Article 15(Right against segregation) of the constitution.
  • Obstruction of state in close to home issue of a person. Be that as it may, this applies for the two men just as women.

Justice Indu Malhotra expressed Section 497 as being violative of article 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution[2]. As per her,

“A legislation that sustains such generalizations seeing someone, and systematizes separation is a reasonable infringement of the fundamental rights ensured by Part III of the Constitution. There is, in this way, no defence for the duration of Section 497 of the IPC as outlined in 1860, to stay on the rule book.”

The Hon’ble court additionally viewed the precedents prior to showing up in the choice, as Sowmithri Vishnu v. UOI 1985[3], Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay 1954 [4] and V. Revathi v. UOI 1988[5]. However these cases were excused by the then Hon’ble passes judgment on making adultery a criminal offense certainly these cases prepared of decriminalization for the situation Joseph Shine v. UOI.

On account of Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. Territory of Bombay[6], 1954, the petitioner addressed whether section 497 of IPC ultra vires Article 14 and 15 of Constitution. It was held that Section 497 of IPC doesn’t disregard any article of the Constitution. Be that as it may, petitioner set forth a few focuses which were taken in Joseph Shine’s case as the offense of adultery must be submitted by man however without any provision to the opposite the lady would be rebuffed as abettor yet he last sentence of Section 497 of IPC denies it as, in that case wife is not punishable as abettor.

Adultery As A Ground Of Divorce

Supreme Court proposed that adultery could be a ground of divorce and convey common punishments, however not a criminal offense.

As indicated by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1), any intentional sex with a not the individual spouse, is a ground for divorce. Section 10 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 characterizes adultery as a ground for judicial separation.

Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act made the provisions of judicial separation on the ground of adultery.

The Special Marriage Act, 1954, expressed that if an individual had intentional sex outside the wedlock, is a substantial ground for divorce.

Constituional Validity Of Section 497 Of Ipc

Judicial way to deal with the criminal offense of adultery has been scrutinized by the committee on the state of ladies in India (CSWI).[7]

It was tested as being violative of the constitutional command of equality. Constitutional Legitimacy similarly has been addressed numerous multiple times. The Supreme Court maintaining the constitutional legitimacy of S.

497 IPC saw that “Section 497 doesn’t visualize the indictment of the wife by the husband for adultery. The section gives explicitly that the wife will not be culpable even as an abettor. No complaint would then be able to be made that the section doesn’t permit the wife to arraign the husband for adultery. The examination of the law obviously is that the wife, who is associated with an unlawful relationship with another man, is a casualty and not the creator of the wrongdoing. The offense of adultery as characterized in section 497 is considered by the legislature as an offense against the holiness of the marital home, a demonstration which is submitted by a man. Hence, those men who contaminate that sacredness are brought inside the net of law. Law just makes a particular sort of extramarital relationship an offense, the connection between a man and wedded lady the man alone being the guilty party. A faithless husband hazards, or maybe, welcomes a common activity by the wife for separation. Of course they add that “Law doesn’t give opportunity upon husbands to be lecherous by running around with unmarried ladies”. In the event that he does as such he risks his wife bringing an activity for separation.

Managing the protection contention that ladies, both hitched and unmarried, have changed their way of life over the years and there are situations where they have destroyed the harmony and bliss of other conjugal homes, the Court further noticed: “We trust this isn’t excessively correct however an under comprehensive definition isn’t really unfair.

The supposed change in ladylike mentality, for great or then again terrible, may even-handedly connect with the consideration of law-producers when

change of punitive law is under taken. They might expand the meaning of ‘Adultery’ to stay up with the moving occasions.

Yet, up to that point law should stay for what it’s worth. The law, for what it’s worth, does not insult either Article 14 or Article 15 of the Constitution”. Bigamy is denied in Criminal law (Sec 494 IPC). Considering the reality Hindu ladies are still socially separated in a male-ruled society and both polygamous relationships and youngster relationships actually occur in remote country regions either because of obliviousness of law or due to long winning social practices. Individuals have contended that there is a lot of weight in the perception of the Supreme

Court’s perception that maybe time isn’t yet ready to rebuff ladies for adultery and that, the wife who is enticed is actually the person in question and not the creator of the wrongdoing.

Conclusion

I feel that the entire article encompasses an improper utilization of word “adultery” in legal framework.

Adultery in evident sense is an offense against ones companion, breach of trust, and house and along these lines, offense of adultery as it is, isn’t covered under S. 497 IPC by any means, as neither the adulterer spouse nor adulteress wife, whatever the case might be, are culpable. The law anyway characterizes punishment for an outsider in a roundabout way engaged with the offense, that too just male lover for breech in holiness of marital house. Criminal law eyes the offense submitted by guys and females with a distinction, an oppressive disposition towards wedded female (spouse), and her lover.

With changing social discernments, the job of Judiciary is extremely basic in translations of the constitution and the changes. Taking into account that the female is socially denied and powerless in most piece of the nation, as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, certainly her position needs to be reinforced. Female (spouse) ought to have equivalent right as male (spouse) to sue the female adulteress for breech in holiness of her marital house.

Subsequently, this prejudicial law should be altered. A public discussion ought to be welcomed and agreement ought to be framed in regards to this biased law. The issue of respect and the privileges of the spouse as a person, that are compromised under S. 497 IPC should be tended to. The

arrangement of adultery being a criminal offense ought to henceforth be erased or changed keeping in see the issues of fairness furthermore, respect of ladies.

“It appears to be generally uncalled for a man to need from a spouse the celibacy he doesn’t himself practice”.

Suggestion

As indicated by me, decriminalization of adultery is a productive advance towards a reformist society by striking down the law which denied the poise of ladies. It is a degenerate conduct as it is unscrupulous and shameless as it disregards the sacredness of the foundation of marriage which is accepted to be a holy organization of society.

Nonetheless, this is simply in the midway. Our nation actually needs to cover far to kill discrimination and to guarantee sexual orientation balance. I’m of the assessment that society ought to likewise ascend from the man centric attitude.

To guarantee the holiness of marriage which as per me is a need in each viewpoint whether being religious, legal or spiritual, everybody ought to be more cautious and delicate towards the foundation of marriage and family framework as it is the fundamental unit of society.

REFERENCE

  • Legalservicesindia.com
  • Researchgate.net
  • Blod.ipleaders.in

[1] http://lawmentor.in/2022/03/16/article-on-adultery-detailed-analysis/

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/02/21/adultery-s-497-ipc-and-s-1982-crpc/

[2] https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/32550/32550_2017_Judgement_27-Sep-2018.pdf

[3] AIR 1985 SC 1618

[4] AIR 1951 Bom 470

[5] AIR1988 SC 835

[6] AIR 1951 Bom 470

[7] Towards Equality, Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India, Government of India, 1975.

Case Summary

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) SCC 29

Leave a comment

This Case Summary is written by Saurabh Gupta & Yashaswini Sangania, students of Nirma University

Synopsis

The provision of adultery under section 497, Indian Penal Code saw women as men’s property has been repealed because it treats women as chattels rather than human beings. The culture in which we live has two sets of morality standards for assessing sexual behaviour: one for males and one for females, which ascribes unattainable qualities to women and restricts them to a restricted area of behaviour through the expectation of compliance.

The legal subjugation of one sex to another is immoral in and of itself, and is currently one of the greatest impediments to human progress in world; and that it should be replaced by a system of full equality, permitting neither power nor privilege on the one hand, nor handicap on the other hand, women cannot be treated as second-class citizens in today’s society with such discriminatory rules. This case comment deals with all the issues related to Adultery and its decriminalization.

Background

The constitutional validity of this provision has been challenged in 4 previous judgements.

  • YUSUF ABDUL AZIZ v. STATE OF BOMBAY

The appellant Yusuf Abdul Aziz, when charged under section 497 of IPC, challenged its constitutional validity that it violated his right to equality under article 14 and 15(1). He claimed that the provision of adultery did not make women culpable in an adulterous relationship and was discriminatory against men making them solely liable for the act. The supreme court upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned section by declaring it a special provision safeguarded under article 15(3) of the constitution which does not allow the article to prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

  • SOWMITHRI VISHNU v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Sonwrithi vishnu approached the supreme court under article 32 of the constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended that this section does not give a wife the right to prosecute her husbands or the woman they have sexual relations with, for the offence of adultery. It was further contended that the provision that prima facie seems to be a measure of positive discrimination in favor of women, was in fact based on the notion that women are mere chattels of men. The apex court upheld the validity of the provision and interpreted the definition of adultery literally, stating that it could only be committed by men and not women. Extending the ambit (if required) of the offence under section 497 was a task for the legislature and not judiciary.

  • V. REVATHI v. UNION OF INDIA 

In this case V. Revathi filed a petition under article 32 of the constitution, challenging the Section 198 Cr.P.C. She contended that whether or not the law permits a husband to prosecute his disloyal wife, the wife cannot be lawfully disabled from prosecuting her disloyal husband. the court ruled in the favor of the provision stating that it Is not discriminatory on the basis of sex, as it does not allow the wife or the husband to prosecute each other on the occurrence of such an offence. It punishes the third party i.e. a male who commits adultery and defiles the sanctity of the matrimonial bond. 

  • W. KALYANI v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR 

The constitutionality of section 497 was not questioned in this case but it was remarked that a woman is completely immune to the charge of adultery and cannot be proceeded against for the same.

Brief Facts

Joseph Shine, a Keralite hotelier in Italy, filed a writ petition under Article 32 questioning the constitutional validity of Section 497 of IPC read with Section 198 of CrPC. He argued that this provision for adultery violated article 14, 15 and 21 and was also discriminatory on the basis of sex. 

Suicide of his close friend in Kerala due to false rape charges made by a female co-worker motivated him to file the PIL where he claimed that such a provision defiles the dignity of women by treating them as mere objects or property of men while also imposing culpability on only men for an act that was consensual.

Issues

  • Whether Section 497 of Indian Penal Code is manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14 of the Indian constitution.
  • Whether Section 497 of Indian Penal Code encourage women to be a mere chattel violating under Article 15 of the Indian constitution.
  • Whether Section 497 of Indian Penal Code violates private realm of an individual violating Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Arguments

AGRUMENT ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

  • VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The learned counsel on the behalf of petitioner argued that Section 497 of IPC & Section 198(2) of CrPC deprives the women right to prosecute her husband, who had maintained sexual relationship with another unmarried women and thereby is arbitrary and fails to pass reasonable classification test laid down under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the fundamental principle of equality and equal treatment. 

The counsel further argued that reasonable classification on the basis of sex is absurd and does not benefit any class and relied on the case of State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, where the court held that reasonable classification under Article 14 has to be made only when absolutely necessary. Moreover, in the case of Lachhman Das v. State of Punjab, it was held that anxious and overemphasis on the doctrine of reasonable classification may lead to devoid Article 14 its own virtue.

Moreover, in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Ors, it was held that to pass the test of reasonable classification, the classification should have reasonable nexus with the object sought. Learned counsel in the present case argued that Section 497, IPC made classification on the basis of gender and marital status and such classification does not have reasonable nexus with the object sought, and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

  • VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The counsel on the behalf of petitioner argued that in the case of Kalyani v. State of Tr. Inspector of Police and Another, it was held that the consent of women is not relevant under section 497, IPC. Thereby Article 15 of the Indian Constitution cannot disguise itself as a protective discrimination and cannot act as a cover up for offences having penal consequence and promoting oppression against women which is not maintainable under any sound law.

Therefore, the counsel submitted that the law which takes away right of one particular sex to prosecute cannot be termed under the ‘beneficial legislature’ under Article 15 (3).

  • VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The learned counsel submits that women in society needs to be considered on equal footing as men and plays equal role in the development as well as in the making of society. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees right to life with dignity, whereas Indian women are suffering from discrimination from ages in silence. Similarly, section 497 of IPC permits a man to have an adulterous relationship with a women other than his wife questions right to dignity of the wife and further depletes her legal right to prosecutes her husband in court of law.

Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India held right to privacy under the ambit of Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution and layed immense stress on the dignity of the individual and held dignity and freedom to be dependent and a means to achieve the other. Therefore, the counsel submitted that any kind of relationship among the individuals is a matter of privacy and violating right to privacy of the individual would violate right to life under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

  • VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The learned counsel on the behalf of Respondent argued that Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution is general in nature and needs to be read with other provisions which are set out the ambit of fundamental rights. It was further argued that Sex is a sound and valid classification and there can be no discrimination on the basis of sex. Moreover, the legislature itself differentiates on the basis of sex by providing special provisions for women and children. Therefore, it is submitted that by the virtue of art. 14 and special provisions for women validates section 497 of the IPC.

  • VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The counsel on the behalf of Respondent laid its reliance on Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay, and argued that section 497, IPC needs to be read Article 15(3) which provides provisions for protection of women and children. Section 497, IPC provides such protection as adulterous women cannot be punished, not even as an abettor, under the impugned section. 

  • VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The learned counsel on the behalf of Respondent rebutted the petitioner’s contention and argued that right to dignity and privacy enshrined under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution is not absolute and is subjected to greater public interest. Further, individuals are free to have consensual sexual relationship outside the martial bond and only extra marital sexual relationships are warranted under Section 497 of the Indian Constitution. 

The Counsel further argued that the India is a land of culture, ethics and tradition, where marriage is the founding stone for all. Section 497 of IPC, preserves the sanctity of the most important institution of the Indian Society and thus submitted that right to privacy and dignity could be restricted for public interest and greater good.

Judgement

  • VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

The court found that the impugned judgement was arbitrary and does not have reasonable classification. The court found the classification arbitrary as it gave prime importance to the husband allowing him as an aggrieved person the right to prosecute against adultery while giving absolutely no rights to women for the same. This offence is indirectly derived form the notion that women are mere property of men they are married to and any person trespassing that property without the permission of the husband is committing an offence against him. The court referred the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and stated that the a test of manifest arbitrariness should always be applied in such cases to check the validity of legislations and the arbitrary ones should be struck down.

Taking the case of E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu as a precedent It was noted that Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14

  • VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 15

The court found that the impugned provision was not a case of protective discrimination against women but an inherently discriminatory act deep rooted in patriarchy.

The court found the provision discriminatory as it further boosted the stereotype of men having control over their wives’ sexuality. It boosts the false notion that women are incapable of exercising their individual sexual freedom and can be wooed or seduced by men without their awareness. The provision treats women as passive objects which can be misappropriated and also gives them protection from being punished as abettors to the offence of adultery. The provision for protective discrimination against women in Article 15(3), as per the Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P B Vijayakumar, was made to eliminate this socio-economic backwardness of women and to empower them in a manner that would bring about effective equality between men and women. It was also noted from the case of Independent Thought vs. Union of India that protective discrimination was to be employed in a manner that is not entrenched in the paternalistic notions of ‘protection’ Dignity and autonomy are crucial to substantive equality and thus section 497 was found violative of Article 15(1) of the constitution.

  • VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21

The court found section 497 violative of the sexual privacy and dignity of a women and takes away the autonomy granted to her by Article 21 of the constitution.

The provision did not make adultery an offence if committed with the husbands consent which implies that he is puppet master of his wife and hence the wife is deprived of her sexual autonomy as well as individuality. The impugned section gives the idea that even after the passage of 158 years, and big ideas of women being equal to men they are still subconsciously the chattels of their husbands who wouldn’t have an identity without them. By taking the cases of S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs Union of India and others and Common Cause v. Union of India and ors. the court said that curtailing the sexual autonomy of women is violative of the fundamental right to dignity and equality provided under Article 21.

Critical analysis

Historically, adultery has always been seen as a severe and legitimate offence in many cultures and countries. The law on adultery is continuously developing as in the past, the woman was held accountable for the offence, however, under current legislation, the male who commits adultery was punished under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, and the wife is not held responsible.

Criminalisation as well as decriminalisation is an importance facet of criminal law and it is important to note, how criminal law is interacting with the people and upholding the moral values that organises a society. Since, the society can’t be static, there is always a need of attention of legislature to satisfy the developing needs.

Marriage is one of the social institutions which is considered very important for the smooth functioning of the society. Adultery has been a conflicted issue since a very long time and its quite astonishing to find that the law which safeguards the holiness and sanctity of marriage from dishonesty and misrepresentation, has been decriminalised 

As observed by Justice Dipak Mishra in the case of Joseph Shine v. UOI, the law of Adultery is premised on a discriminatory principle, since one of the adultery parties is assumed to be a victim and the other to be a criminal, and thereby a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because it leads to arbitrary gender categorization. While the judgment is likely to have a wide-ranging influence on marriages, the negative consequences cannot be overlooked. The legalisation of adultery will jeopardise the institution of marriage in a society where divorce rates and incidents of marital infidelity are on the rise. Not only does it risk promoting extramarital relationships, but it also risks catalysing the breakdown of marriages, leaving children of divorced parents in the lurch.

Decriminalizing section 497, IPC has a western influence and divorce rate in western countries is 52% and rising. To prevent India from following the trend, laws and sanctions against extra-martials affairs needs to be stricter.

Moreover, instead of decriminalising adultery under Section 497 IPC, only Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which prohibits wives from bringing adultery cases, should have been decriminalised. The section should have been gender-neutral from the start.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has decriminalized 150 anti-adultery laws because they favour a husband who acts like a master of his wife. This case comment concludes that society has changed dramatically, and women are no longer considered the property of their husbands. The rule outlawing adultery, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India at the time quoted, is arbitrary and degrades a woman’s dignity.