NEW DELHI: Delhi high court has discharged a man in an adultery case filed by the husband of a woman, he was allegedly having an affair, noting that treating a woman as a man’s property is a deeply flawed notion, one that dates back to the Mahabharat.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who pronounced the verdict on April 17, referenced the epic to highlight the patriarchal roots of the now-defunct adultery law under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). “The woman being considered as the property of the husband and its devastating consequences are well documented in Mahabharat wherein Draupadi was put on stake in a game of gamble by none other than her own husband Yudhishtra where other four brothers were the silent spectators and Draupadi had no voice to protest for her dignity.”
The court underlined the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment that decriminalised adultery, declaring Section 497 IPC unconstitutional for treating a woman as a passive victim without agency. The law, Justice Krishna noted, did not punish the woman involved in an adulterous relationship, considering her a “victim who was seduced” and not an abettor or offender, reflecting a “chauvinistic logic”.
“As it happened, she was lost in the game of gamble and what followed was the great war of Mahabharat leading to mass loss of lives and wiping out of many of the family members. Despite having such example to demonstrate the consequence of absurdity of treating of a woman as a chattel, the misogynistic mindset of our society understood this only when the apex court declared Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional,” the court added.
In the present case, the husband had accused his wife and the petitioner of having an affair and travelling to another city, where they allegedly stayed in a hotel and had sexual relations without his consent.
While a magisterial court had earlier discharged the man, the sessions court reversed the decision and issued summons. However, the high court quashed the complaint, holding that even the basic ingredients of the repealed Section 497 were not made out.
Quoting the top court, the bench said, “When a party in a matrimonial relationship loses moral commitment, it is absolutely a matter of privacy. Thinking of adultery from the point of criminality would be a retrograde step.”
Slamming the outdated notion of marital ownership over women, the judge observed that the provision was never about preserving the sanctity of marriage but about upholding the husband’s control.
“What is clear, therefore, is that this archaic law has long outlived its purpose and does not square with today’s constitutional morality in that the very object with which it was made, has since become manifestly arbitrary having lost its rationale long ago and become in today’s day and age, utterly irrational,” the court said, as it discharged the accused.
