I may be the fool here, but let me risk the possibility of being termed just that

Why this Dual Standards? -Why dont we write the laws entirely pandering to women's desires instead. Re:Married woman can live with her lover, says court

Ref:Article in Hindustan Times, dtd.April 19, 2007 -> http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9e0b7ae6-86f2-4cb8-812e-a71677b4d729&

Married woman can live with her lover, says court
by KS Tomar, Email Author , Jaipur,

Subject: But really..........Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband?
(do comment on this subject at http://www.saveindianfamily.org/articles/2007/04/i-may-be-fool-here-but-let-me-risk.html )

Hello Everyone,

I may be the fool here, but let me risk the possibility of being termed just that, and yet ask everyone- whether a woman can live with her lover(especially without the consent of her husband!, howmuchever unlikely the possibility of situations to the contrary could be!), while her legal marriage with her husband still exists(will she be legally correct in doing so?. At least isn't a crime of Adultery for her lover?): http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S497.htm , excerpt of this is quoted at the bottom of this mail for ready reference).


Its a simple question, which I consciously made so short so that we can start the discussion based on the popular verdict on this.

The secondary question related to whether a married woman can live with her lover, while her legal husband is alive and non-consenting to this scenario, is that, whether a Judge of an Indian court right, in pronouncing that there is nothing wrong (did the learned judge mean that nothing is wrong 'morally'!, is his role to be a love-guru or a culture-vulture or even a purveyor of morality, or , as expected of him, the upholder of justice or at least, in the bargain, the upholder of WRITTEN LAW prevailing in Present India!).

Some observations on the news(this is uploaded at http://www.protectindianfamily.org/?module=filesdb&id=7&fid=3&get=1 for reference)

The judge may be logically or even morally correct in taking this stance in the above scenario, since the girl, in this case, seem to be not all interested(even before marriage she had this 'thing' going!) in her 'legally-married-to-husband". Moreover her lover seems to be ready to face a possible 'Adultery' case! against him, which is what the IPC 497-Adultery
reads out, but only that the judge is not at all ready to take action against him on grounds of adultery, which is the justifiable behaviour expected out of an Honourable Judge(I am assuming that the detailed judgement really doesn't talk about an action under section 497 ie. Adultery law, already been pressed on the lover)

Why this double standards by the Judiciary!- when a girl does obviously wrongful acts according to the WRITTEN LAW of a country, she gets away with favourable interpretations, hearings and readings of the law. This is ensure even if it requires our Judges to do this by bending over backwards or even winding themselves into unjustifiable coils of Judicial wisdom and interpretations, and "woolly woolly words" for judgements, with a willing 180 degree spin-doctoring by the Judiciary , only when the party concerned is a woman(along with her paramour, intact, at her heels). I am not at all justifying the girl's husband, I am just focusing on the courts lenience towards her, which is just the summary of many a case in India, a blatant Gender-Skew!.

Meanwhile when men live by the law, they are treated Guilty until proven innocent(by his own effort, ie. burden of proof solely on himself), yes I am referring to the misuse of gender-biased-skewed laws like IPC 498a and Domestic Violence Act , etc.. If in the legal interpretation of our judges men always have a propensity to do 'bad', and thats why they need to give some 'headstart' to women by ruling in favour of them!, why don't they change the 'WRITTEN LAW ' , so that at least men do not have the ignominy of living with a
non-enforceable Indian Penal Code with respect to men, by and large!.

So the Questions once again are:

1. Whether a married woman can live with her lover, while her legal husband is alive and non-consenting to this scenario(this has reference to the validity of the Adultery law ie IPC 497, as it stands now!)- will she be legally correct in doing so

2. With respect to the above scenario, whether a Judge of an Indian court right in pronouncing that there is nothing wrong on the part of the lady or her lover.- Is the Judge legally correct in doing so

Reference: Indian Penal Code, Section 497. Adultery

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 case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor.(->Interpretation, the Girl is not an
offender of any law in this case, not even a co-accused!)

----------------------------------------------------
On 4/19/07, ramdama dam wrote:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9e0b7ae6-86f2-4cb8-812e-a71677b4d729&Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband? The Rajasthan High Court says yes. In a judgment on Wednesday, the court allowed a married woman, Manju, to live with her lover, Suresh. "It is improper to pass an order to hand over any unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay," said justices GS Mishra and KC Sharma. The court also said that nobody should consider an adult woman as a consumer product. While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Manju's husband, the court came down hard on the misuse of habeas corpus petitions by people who want to thrust their will upon adult women without their consent. The court said the husband was free to approach the family court for divorce. Commenting on the judgment, senior Supreme Court advocate and noted women's rights activist Indira Jaising said, "Though it sounds strange, I am in complete agreement with the high court." "At the end of the day an adult woman has a right to decide whom she wants to live with. She can't be forced to go with her husband against her will," Jaising said. In this case, Jaising said, it is clear that the woman was prepared for divorce. She also felt that Manju's husband had abused the habeas corpus petition because such petitions were generally filed when somebody is actually missing. Asked whether it amounted to adultery, Jaising clarified that the woman could not be prosecuted for this offence under the law. As for the other man, she said, "it seems he is ready to face that". National Commission for Women Chairperson Girija Vyas said that although it seemed like an important judgment, she could not comment on it since she had not seen it yet. Manoj Chaudhry, the counsel for Manju and Suresh, had earlier rejected as baseless the allegations that Manju had been kept in illegal confinement by Suresh. He said that the duo had been living together by their free will and that the relationship had begun even before Manju had got married. With inputs from Satya Prakash and Sutirtho Patranobis.

. All India Helpline Number: 91-92434 73794 (24 Hours)Alternate Nos : 91-9810611534 or 080-65334135 Volunteer Helpline Numbers (limited contact hours)--------------------------------------------------------------- Delhi: Ashish : 9911119113, Swarup : 9810611534 Rajiv :9891369616 Bangalore: 80-65334135 Kolkata : 033-25347398/25217318 Mumbai: 9224335577 / 9869323538 Ahmadabad:9825365816