Adultery: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* See also */

2026-04-16T10:35:42Z

‎See also

Jyoti: /* Elopement, extra-marital */

2026-04-16T10:29:03Z

‎Elopement, extra-marital

Jyoti: /* 'A few lapses are not adultery’ */

2025-09-25T14:59:32Z

‎'A few lapses are not adultery’

Jyoti: /* The legal position in India in 2025 */

2025-03-26T18:41:59Z

‎The legal position in India in 2025

Jyoti: /* The global position, 1857-2015 */

2025-03-26T18:41:36Z

‎The global position, 1857-2015

Jyoti: /* The global position, 1857-2015 */

2025-03-26T18:37:12Z

‎The global position, 1857-2015

Pdewan: /* History: Why it was enacted in 1860 */

2025-02-17T14:43:25Z

‎History: Why it was enacted in 1860

Jyoti at 18:15, 12 March 2023

2023-03-12T18:15:53Z

Jyoti: /* Law biased against married men? */

2022-12-10T19:13:26Z

‎Law biased against married men?

Jyoti: /* Historial overview */

2022-05-06T06:34:04Z

‎Historial overview

@@ Line 439: / Line 439: @@
 [[Paternity and the law: India]]
-[[Category:Crime|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
+[[Live-in relationships: India]]
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
+[[Category:India|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 The HC had earlier asked the government whether the public at large could be intimated about Parmar’s case so that any similar indiscretions by him could be brought to light. Parmar’s counsel said his client obtained “customary divorce” before the elopement, but the HC questioned the veracity of the claim.
-[[Category:Crime|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
+=Live-in relationships and Married people=
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
+[[Category:India|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]

@@ Line 257: / Line 257: @@
 The Gujarat high court has upheld a lower court's definition of adultery, where it said that a couple of lapses in behaviour, if they are unwitting, cannot be called adultery.However, a singular premeditated act of sexual intercourse by one spouse with another person would be adultery . The HC upheld these observations while refusing maintenance to a wife, who admittedly was found living an adulterous life. The court also upheld the payment of maintenance to a minor child by his father, but not to the wife because she was in a relationship with a third person.
 This case is from Patan district. The woman unsuccessfully moved a magisterial court for alimony according to the provisions of section 125 of the CrPC.
 She then approached a sessions court, which also denied her maintenance. In its order, the sessions court said: “One or two lapses or an occasional incident may be condoned, provided that they are unwitting.Sometimes, a situation arises whereupon, even without design or thought in mind, a young person may indulge in an intimate act. But an act of sexual intercourse by a spouse with another person, predetermined or preconceptualized, even if it is a singular act, would be adultery .“
 =The Supreme Court’s verdicts=

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:41, 26 March 2025
Line 127:		Line 127:
	ADULTERY: INDIA]]		ADULTERY: INDIA]]

−	~~==The legal position in India in 2025==~~
−	~~[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/adultery-law-9836639/ Feb 15, 2025: ''The Indian Express'']~~

−	'' Adultery was decriminalised in 2018 after a Supreme Court decision. However, it remains in the statute books as a ground for relief in civil cases relating to maintenance and divorce, and as a ground for punishment in the armed forces ''
−
−	The Madhya Pradesh High Court last month ruled that evidence of sexual intercourse was necessary to prove adultery as a ground for cancellation of maintenance. The ruling effectively restates the legal definition of adultery that has been accepted by the courts in civil proceedings.
−
−	Adultery was decriminalised in 2018 after a Supreme Court decision. However, it remains in the statute books as a ground for relief in civil cases relating to maintenance and divorce, and as a ground for punishment in the armed forces.
−
−	~~''' What is the definition of adultery? '''~~
−
−	Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), recognised the crime of adultery and provides the accompanying punishment. It defined 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”.
−
−	There are two key points to consider here. First, under Section 497 only a man could be prosecuted and punished for committing the crime of adultery. Second, for someone to be punished for adultery he must have had sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, without that man’s consent. It was punishable with up to five years imprisonment and a fine.
−
−	~~The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into effect on July 1, 2024, does not mention adultery as it was decriminalised by the apex court.~~
−
−	~~''' Why is adultery no longer a criminal offence? '''~~
−
−	In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench unanimously ruled that Section 497 was unconstitutional. The court held that the provision was discriminatory towards women and treated them as subordinate to their husbands “inasmuch as it lays down that when there is connivance or consent of the man, there is no offence”. As a result, the SC held that “this treats the woman as a chattel. It treats her as the property of man and totally subservient to the will of the master”.
−
−	For similar reasons, the SC also struck down Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which only allowed the aggrieved husband or “some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time” to file a complaint under Section 497.
−
−	However, the SC clarified that adultery would remain a moral wrong and could be invoked as a ground in civil proceedings. Then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said, “There can be no shadow of doubt that adultery can be a ground for any kind of civil wrong including dissolution of marriage”. He explained that the outcome of adultery should be left to the individuals involved, stating “when the parties to a marriage lose their moral commitment of the relationship, it creates a dent in the marriage and it will depend upon the parties how they deal with the situation…It is absolutely a matter of privacy at its pinnacle”.
−
−	~~''' How is adultery still legally relevant? '''~~
−
−	As the SC clarified, adultery remains a ground for relief in civil cases such as divorce proceedings. Under both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), one of the grounds for divorce is if the husband or wife “has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse”.
−
−	Though it is not explicitly called adultery under the provisions for divorce (Section 13 of the HMA and Section 27 of the SMA), it is referred to as adultery in later provisions. Both laws contain provisions empowering the other party to counter-sue in divorce proceedings on the grounds of “adultery”. Courts have also ruled that proof of sexual intercourse is necessary to invoke adultery as a ground for divorce.
−
−	The Delhi HC for instance heard a divorce case in 1982 where the husband was allegedly found lying in bed naked with a minor girl. However, the court refused to grant a decree for divorce, finding that “there must at least be partial penetration for the act of adultery to be proved. The attempt to commit adultery must not be confused with the act itself, and if there is no penetration some lesser act of sexual gratification does not amount to adultery”. The court borrowed this from the book “Rayden on Divorce” — a reference book for family law students and practitioners — and referred to other cases which supported this definition.
−
−	The requirement for sexual intercourse is necessary to prove adultery in maintenance cases as well. Under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, “No wife shall be entitled to receive (maintenance)…from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery”.
−	In the Madhya Pradesh HC case, however, though the husband had claimed his wife was engaged in a “love affair” with another person, the HC refused to interfere with the past order directing him to pay maintenance. The court found that there was no proof of his wife having sex with another person and held “adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery”.
−
−	~~''' Are there exceptions to the SC’s judgment? '''~~
−
−	In 2023, an application was filed in the Joseph Shine case seeking clarity on how the judgment would apply to the armed forces. The Centre argued that the Army, Navy, and Air Force were a “distinct class” under Article 33 of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to pass laws to determine “to what extent” fundamental rights will apply to members of the armed forces.
−
−	The Centre argued that the armed forces should be governed by the relevant laws — the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, and the Air Force Act, 1950. These laws provide punishments with the possibility of imprisonment for “unbecoming conduct” and violations of “good order and discipline” which would include “promiscuous or adulterous acts”, according to the Centre.
−
−	The SC allowed the Centre’s arguments, stating that the ruling was “not at all concerned with the effect and operation of the relevant provisions in the Acts which have been placed before us”. Effectively, adultery is still a punishable offence for members of the armed forces.

	[[Category:Crime\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:41, 26 March 2025
Line 75:		Line 75:

	''i) Adultery and the law: The global position, 1857-2015; <br/> ii) Acceptability of adultery in Pakistan, China and other countries''		''i) Adultery and the law: The global position, 1857-2015; <br/> ii) Acceptability of adultery in Pakistan, China and other countries''
		+
		+	==The legal position in India in 2025==
		+	[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/adultery-law-9836639/ Feb 15, 2025: ''The Indian Express'']
		+
		+	'' Adultery was decriminalised in 2018 after a Supreme Court decision. However, it remains in the statute books as a ground for relief in civil cases relating to maintenance and divorce, and as a ground for punishment in the armed forces ''
		+
		+	The Madhya Pradesh High Court last month ruled that evidence of sexual intercourse was necessary to prove adultery as a ground for cancellation of maintenance. The ruling effectively restates the legal definition of adultery that has been accepted by the courts in civil proceedings.
		+
		+	Adultery was decriminalised in 2018 after a Supreme Court decision. However, it remains in the statute books as a ground for relief in civil cases relating to maintenance and divorce, and as a ground for punishment in the armed forces.
		+
		+	''' What is the definition of adultery? '''
		+
		+	Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), recognised the crime of adultery and provides the accompanying punishment. It defined 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”.
		+
		+	There are two key points to consider here. First, under Section 497 only a man could be prosecuted and punished for committing the crime of adultery. Second, for someone to be punished for adultery he must have had sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, without that man’s consent. It was punishable with up to five years imprisonment and a fine.
		+
		+	The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into effect on July 1, 2024, does not mention adultery as it was decriminalised by the apex court.
		+
		+	''' Why is adultery no longer a criminal offence? '''
		+
		+	In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench unanimously ruled that Section 497 was unconstitutional. The court held that the provision was discriminatory towards women and treated them as subordinate to their husbands “inasmuch as it lays down that when there is connivance or consent of the man, there is no offence”. As a result, the SC held that “this treats the woman as a chattel. It treats her as the property of man and totally subservient to the will of the master”.
		+
		+	For similar reasons, the SC also struck down Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which only allowed the aggrieved husband or “some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time” to file a complaint under Section 497.
		+
		+	However, the SC clarified that adultery would remain a moral wrong and could be invoked as a ground in civil proceedings. Then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said, “There can be no shadow of doubt that adultery can be a ground for any kind of civil wrong including dissolution of marriage”. He explained that the outcome of adultery should be left to the individuals involved, stating “when the parties to a marriage lose their moral commitment of the relationship, it creates a dent in the marriage and it will depend upon the parties how they deal with the situation…It is absolutely a matter of privacy at its pinnacle”.
		+
		+	''' How is adultery still legally relevant? '''
		+
		+	As the SC clarified, adultery remains a ground for relief in civil cases such as divorce proceedings. Under both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), one of the grounds for divorce is if the husband or wife “has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse”.
		+
		+	Though it is not explicitly called adultery under the provisions for divorce (Section 13 of the HMA and Section 27 of the SMA), it is referred to as adultery in later provisions. Both laws contain provisions empowering the other party to counter-sue in divorce proceedings on the grounds of “adultery”. Courts have also ruled that proof of sexual intercourse is necessary to invoke adultery as a ground for divorce.
		+
		+	The Delhi HC for instance heard a divorce case in 1982 where the husband was allegedly found lying in bed naked with a minor girl. However, the court refused to grant a decree for divorce, finding that “there must at least be partial penetration for the act of adultery to be proved. The attempt to commit adultery must not be confused with the act itself, and if there is no penetration some lesser act of sexual gratification does not amount to adultery”. The court borrowed this from the book “Rayden on Divorce” — a reference book for family law students and practitioners — and referred to other cases which supported this definition.
		+
		+	The requirement for sexual intercourse is necessary to prove adultery in maintenance cases as well. Under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, “No wife shall be entitled to receive (maintenance)…from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery”.
		+	In the Madhya Pradesh HC case, however, though the husband had claimed his wife was engaged in a “love affair” with another person, the HC refused to interfere with the past order directing him to pay maintenance. The court found that there was no proof of his wife having sex with another person and held “adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery”.
		+
		+	''' Are there exceptions to the SC’s judgment? '''
		+
		+	In 2023, an application was filed in the Joseph Shine case seeking clarity on how the judgment would apply to the armed forces. The Centre argued that the Army, Navy, and Air Force were a “distinct class” under Article 33 of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to pass laws to determine “to what extent” fundamental rights will apply to members of the armed forces.
		+
		+	The Centre argued that the armed forces should be governed by the relevant laws — the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, and the Air Force Act, 1950. These laws provide punishments with the possibility of imprisonment for “unbecoming conduct” and violations of “good order and discipline” which would include “promiscuous or adulterous acts”, according to the Centre.
		+
		+	The SC allowed the Centre’s arguments, stating that the ruling was “not at all concerned with the effect and operation of the relevant provisions in the Acts which have been placed before us”. Effectively, adultery is still a punishable offence for members of the armed forces.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]

	==The legal position in India in 2025==		==The legal position in India in 2025==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 26 March 2025
Line 76:		Line 76:
	''i) Adultery and the law: The global position, 1857-2015; <br/> ii) Acceptability of adultery in Pakistan, China and other countries''		''i) Adultery and the law: The global position, 1857-2015; <br/> ii) Acceptability of adultery in Pakistan, China and other countries''

		+	==The legal position in India in 2025==
		+	[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/adultery-law-9836639/ Feb 15, 2025: ''The Indian Express'']
		+
		+	'' Adultery was decriminalised in 2018 after a Supreme Court decision. However, it remains in the statute books as a ground for relief in civil cases relating to maintenance and divorce, and as a ground for punishment in the armed forces ''
		+
		+	The Madhya Pradesh High Court last month ruled that evidence of sexual intercourse was necessary to prove adultery as a ground for cancellation of maintenance. The ruling effectively restates the legal definition of adultery that has been accepted by the courts in civil proceedings.
		+
		+	Adultery was decriminalised in 2018 after a Supreme Court decision. However, it remains in the statute books as a ground for relief in civil cases relating to maintenance and divorce, and as a ground for punishment in the armed forces.
		+
		+	''' What is the definition of adultery? '''
		+
		+	Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), recognised the crime of adultery and provides the accompanying punishment. It defined 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”.
		+
		+	There are two key points to consider here. First, under Section 497 only a man could be prosecuted and punished for committing the crime of adultery. Second, for someone to be punished for adultery he must have had sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, without that man’s consent. It was punishable with up to five years imprisonment and a fine.
		+
		+	The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into effect on July 1, 2024, does not mention adultery as it was decriminalised by the apex court.
		+
		+	''' Why is adultery no longer a criminal offence? '''
		+
		+	In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench unanimously ruled that Section 497 was unconstitutional. The court held that the provision was discriminatory towards women and treated them as subordinate to their husbands “inasmuch as it lays down that when there is connivance or consent of the man, there is no offence”. As a result, the SC held that “this treats the woman as a chattel. It treats her as the property of man and totally subservient to the will of the master”.
		+
		+	For similar reasons, the SC also struck down Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which only allowed the aggrieved husband or “some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time” to file a complaint under Section 497.
		+
		+	However, the SC clarified that adultery would remain a moral wrong and could be invoked as a ground in civil proceedings. Then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said, “There can be no shadow of doubt that adultery can be a ground for any kind of civil wrong including dissolution of marriage”. He explained that the outcome of adultery should be left to the individuals involved, stating “when the parties to a marriage lose their moral commitment of the relationship, it creates a dent in the marriage and it will depend upon the parties how they deal with the situation…It is absolutely a matter of privacy at its pinnacle”.
		+
		+	''' How is adultery still legally relevant? '''
		+
		+	As the SC clarified, adultery remains a ground for relief in civil cases such as divorce proceedings. Under both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), one of the grounds for divorce is if the husband or wife “has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse”.
		+
		+	Though it is not explicitly called adultery under the provisions for divorce (Section 13 of the HMA and Section 27 of the SMA), it is referred to as adultery in later provisions. Both laws contain provisions empowering the other party to counter-sue in divorce proceedings on the grounds of “adultery”. Courts have also ruled that proof of sexual intercourse is necessary to invoke adultery as a ground for divorce.
		+
		+	The Delhi HC for instance heard a divorce case in 1982 where the husband was allegedly found lying in bed naked with a minor girl. However, the court refused to grant a decree for divorce, finding that “there must at least be partial penetration for the act of adultery to be proved. The attempt to commit adultery must not be confused with the act itself, and if there is no penetration some lesser act of sexual gratification does not amount to adultery”. The court borrowed this from the book “Rayden on Divorce” — a reference book for family law students and practitioners — and referred to other cases which supported this definition.
		+
		+	The requirement for sexual intercourse is necessary to prove adultery in maintenance cases as well. Under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, “No wife shall be entitled to receive (maintenance)…from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery”.
		+	In the Madhya Pradesh HC case, however, though the husband had claimed his wife was engaged in a “love affair” with another person, the HC refused to interfere with the past order directing him to pay maintenance. The court found that there was no proof of his wife having sex with another person and held “adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery”.
		+
		+	''' Are there exceptions to the SC’s judgment? '''
		+
		+	In 2023, an application was filed in the Joseph Shine case seeking clarity on how the judgment would apply to the armed forces. The Centre argued that the Army, Navy, and Air Force were a “distinct class” under Article 33 of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to pass laws to determine “to what extent” fundamental rights will apply to members of the armed forces.
		+
		+	The Centre argued that the armed forces should be governed by the relevant laws — the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, and the Air Force Act, 1950. These laws provide punishments with the possibility of imprisonment for “unbecoming conduct” and violations of “good order and discipline” which would include “promiscuous or adulterous acts”, according to the Centre.
		+
		+	The SC allowed the Centre’s arguments, stating that the ruling was “not at all concerned with the effect and operation of the relevant provisions in the Acts which have been placed before us”. Effectively, adultery is still a punishable offence for members of the armed forces.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]

	= Elopement, extra-marital =		= Elopement, extra-marital =

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Though most liberal democracies have since decriminalized adultery, India is still stuck with Section 497 IPC, exactly as it was enacted in 1860 against the backdrop of pervasive polygamy . The Victorian legacy remains even after the constitutionality of this discriminatory provision was challenged successively before the Supreme Court by both sides of the gender divide. The first time the Supreme Court upheld Section 497 was in 1954, a year before the abolition of polygamy for Hindus, and it happened to be on a challenge filed by a Muslim husband.
-==History: Why it was enacted in 1860==
+==History: Why the law was enacted in 1860==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F09%2F28&entity=Ar02403&sk=E2E4C59A&mode=text  Dhananjay Mahapatra, September 28, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 “It is, therefore, not far to see as to why a married man having sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman was not the subject matter of the offence. Since adultery did not exist as a ground in divorce law, there being no divorce law, and since a man could marry any number of wives among Hindus, it was clear that there was no sense in punishing a married man in having sex with an unmarried woman as he could easily marry her at a subsequent point in time. Two of the fundamental props or bases of this archaic law have since gone. Post 1955-1956, with the advent of the ‘Hindu Code’, so to speak, a Hindu man can marry only one wife, and adultery has been made a ground for divorce in Hindu law.”
 ==No licence to cheat==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |}
-[[Category:India |A ]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |A ]]
-[[Category:Crime |A ]]
 =Historial overview=
@@ Line 319: / Line 319: @@
 In case she elects to undergo a DNA test, then the findings of the DNA test will determine conclusively the veracity of the accusation levelled by the petitioner husband against her.
 “The DNA test is the most legitimate and scientifically perfect means which the husband could use to establish his assertion of his wife’s infidelity. Further, the DNA test should simultaneously be taken as the most authentic, rightful and correct means also with the wife for her to rebut the assertions made by the husband,” Justice Vivek Agarwal observed while hearing a petition filed by one Neelam that challenged an order (dated September 22, 2018) passed by the additional principal judge, family court, Hamirpur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
@@ Line 343: / Line 344: @@
 The bench, however, suggested that the parties to go for a divorce settlement instead of raising the issue of adultery and DNA test again in a lower court. As the counsel appearing for both the parties agreed to convince their clients, the bench posted the hearing for Wednesday to settle the dispute.
-[[Category:Crime|A ADULTERY: INDIA
+=See also=
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|A ADULTERY: INDIA
+[[Category:India|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ADULTERY: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
 ADULTERY: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 10 December 2022
Line 157:		Line 157:

	CJI Misra and Justice Chandrachud said: “Adultery may not be the cause for a broken marriage but a consequence thereof. Many a time, a party to a marriage wants divorce after a marriage has broken down, but the case goes on for years in the court. If the woman finds solace, love and affection in another man, should that man be booked for adultery by her estranged husband just because the marriage has not been annulled through divorce?”		CJI Misra and Justice Chandrachud said: “Adultery may not be the cause for a broken marriage but a consequence thereof. Many a time, a party to a marriage wants divorce after a marriage has broken down, but the case goes on for years in the court. If the woman finds solace, love and affection in another man, should that man be booked for adultery by her estranged husband just because the marriage has not been annulled through divorce?”
		+
		+
		+	==Photos not enough to prove adultery: Gujarat HC==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/mere-photos-not-enough-to-prove-adultery-gujarat-hc/articleshow/95987938.cms Dec 5, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	AHMEDABAD: In an observation regarding the allegations of adultery, the Gujarat high court has said that by supplying mere photographs a man cannot prove that his wife is leading an adulterous life.
		+
		+	The man produced photographs of his wife before the HC to claim that she is in an adulterous relationship and therefore not entitled to maintenance. Justice Umesh Trivedi said: “The allegation against the respondent that she leads adulterous life is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence before the court and production of mere photographs, that too, before this court will not suffice to assert that she leads adulterous life, and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. ”
		+	In this case, the womanhad approached a family court in Ahmedabad and sought interim maintenance for herself and her daughters.
		+
		+	The family court on June 14 ordered the husband to pay them Rs 30,000 every month.
		+
		+	The husband approached the HC and challenged the maintenance order, asserting that his wife is leading an adulterous life and hence the family court cannot grant interim maintenance. He also supplied his income tax returns to say that his income was not enough to pay Rs 30,000 to his wife every month.
		+
		+	In reply, the wife supplied documents such as photographs of luxury cars, their registration certificates, and properties owned by the husband. She told the court that he also owns 150 autorickshaws and earns from their rent. Besides, the woman produced documents showing that her husband works as an agent at the RTO and runs a finance firm in the name of Umiya Automobiles.
		+
		+	After hearing the submissions, the HC on November 29 dismissed the husband’s challenge to the maintenance order.
		+
		+
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]

	=='A few lapses are not adultery’==		=='A few lapses are not adultery’==

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 6 May 2022
Line 69:		Line 69:
	''i) Adultery and the law: The global position, 1857-2015; <br/> ii) Acceptability of adultery in Pakistan, China and other countries''		''i) Adultery and the law: The global position, 1857-2015; <br/> ii) Acceptability of adultery in Pakistan, China and other countries''

		+
		+	= Elopement, extra-marital =
		+	== HC asks man to pay police for elopement==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=20_04_2022_028_002_cap_TOI Saeed.Khan , April 20, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Ahmedabad: The perils of making the police sweat are no less than the pitfalls of extra-marital elopement, as a married man learnt to his cost seven months after running away with a 20-year-old woman. The Gujarat high court on Tuesday directed the man to reimburse 50% of the Rs 1. 17 lakh spent by the state government over exactly 17,710 hours to trace the woman since her father reported her missing.
		+
		+	Raghabhai Parmar, who eloped with the woman from Rajkot last year, risks contempt of court if he doesn’t deposit Rs 55,000 with the HC registry within the stipulated time. The amount will go into the Police Welfare Fund.
		+
		+	The woman’s father had approached the HC soon after she disappeared. After she was traced seven months later, the father claimed damages from Parmar, saying he incurred expenses totalling Rs 8 lakh in trying to find his daughter’s whereabouts. The judge permitted him to approach the appropriate court for this, his lawyer Nirav Sanghavi.
		+
		+	On Rajkot police incurring considerable expenses, the court accepted the submission that the department spent Rs 42,500 on the investigation and nearly Rs 75,000 in judicial costs, including ar- rangements for all sides to be present at hearings. The court mentioned that Parmar being directed to pay the police half of what they spent was also a penalty for eloping with and “exploiting” a woman despite him being already married.
		+
		+	The HC had earlier asked the government whether the public at large could be intimated about Parmar’s case so that any similar indiscretions by him could be brought to light. Parmar’s counsel said his client obtained “customary divorce” before the elopement, but the HC questioned the veracity of the claim.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|A ADULTERY: INDIAADULTERY: INDIA
		+	ADULTERY: INDIA]]

	=Superior courts' judgements, views=		=Superior courts' judgements, views=