Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., has held that the act of a married woman of staying in the house of an old man of different religion after being left by her husband does not constitute adultery.

What was the Background of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. Case?

• It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party (wife of the petitioner) filed a complaint against the petitioner and her matrimonial relations alleging the commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party has been residing with another person of different religion which amounts to adultery within the meaning of Section 497 of IPC.
• It was further contended that the opposite party is not entitled to get any maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The plea of the petitioner was dismissed by the Family Court.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision petition was filed before the High Court of Patna which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed that if residing in the house of the father's friend amounts to adultery there cannot be any social bounding in the society and if this Court is persuaded to hold that staying in the house of an old man of different religion by a married lady amounts to adultery than the entire social relation between man and man, man and women is to be looked into only in terms of sexual relationship.
• It was also stated that this Court is not in a position to consider all the relationships in terms of sexual relationships. Thus, the act of a woman seeking refuge in the home of her father's friend, who follows a different religion, after being left by her husband does not constitute adultery.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 497 of IPC

About:

• Section 497 IPC criminalized adultery.
• It imposed culpability on a man who engages in sexual intercourse with another man’s wife.
• Adultery was punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five years.
• Women though were exempted from prosecution.
• This section was inapplicable when a married man engaged in sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman.
• The object of this section was to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Legal Provision:

• This Section can be read as follows:
  • 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 a case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Decriminalization of Adultery:

• A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and comprising of current (CJI) D.Y Chandrachud and Justices A.M Khanwilkar, R.F Nariman and Indu Malhotra in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) held that adultery is not a crime and struck it off the IPC.
• It however clarified that adultery would continue to remain a civil wrong and a valid ground for divorce.

Section 498A of IPC

About:

• Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
• It states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine.
• For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
  • Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  • Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
• The offence under this section is a cognizable and a non bailable offence.
• The complaint under Section 498-A may be filed by the women aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. And if there is no such relative, then by any public servant as may be notified by the State Government on this behalf.
• A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A can be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. However, Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) enables the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.

Essential Elements:

• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients are required to be satisfied:
  • The woman must be married;
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

Case Law:

• In the case of Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi (2008), the Supreme Court held that Section 498-A of IPC has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property.