Justice Birendra Kumar observed that the exception was the offence of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but the same has already been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2018.
The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled in the case of Yadram and Ors v State of Rajasthan and Ors. that engaging in consensual sexual activity outside of marriage is not considered a criminal offense under the law.
Justice Birendra Kumar noted that although adultery was once deemed an exception under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2018.
“Evidently as noticed in S Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors, no statutory offence takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting. Exception was adultery under Section 497 IPC, which has already been struck down,” the order dated March 21 stated.
The Court entertained an application from a man seeking to overturn a prior order that dismissed an FIR filed under section 366 (Kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage) of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR was initiated by the man, alleging the abduction of his wife by three individuals.
Due to the applicant’s incarceration for a separate offense, he couldn’t attend the proceedings. Meanwhile, his wife appeared and informed the Court about her voluntary cohabitation with one of the accused.
Taking into account her statement and the Supreme Court’s rulings in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India and Shafin Jahan v Asokan KM, emphasizing the precedence of constitutional morality over societal norms, the Court annulled the FIR. Dissatisfied with this decision, the complainant approached the High Court.
Advocate Ankit Khandelwal, representing the applicant, argued that since the applicant’s wife confessed to an extramarital relationship, offenses under section 494 (marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse) and 497 (adultery) of the IPC were evident.
Furthermore, he contended that the Court should intervene to uphold social morality and not condone extramarital affairs by a married individual. He cited the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Manjot Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., issued earlier this year on January 25.
The Court noted that the decisions of the apex court in Navtej Singh Johar and Shafin Jahan were not presented before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Subsequently, the Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors., affirming that no statutory offense occurs when consenting adults engage in sexual relations outside of marriage, except under section 497 IPC.
The Court emphasized that in Joseph Shine v Union of India, the Supreme Court had deemed Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore nullified it.
Moreover, it clarified that the offense under section 494 was not applicable since the complainant’s wife hadn’t remarried anyone.
“Unless marriage is pleaded and proved, only marriage like relationship such as living-in-relationship would not come within the mischief of Section 494 IPC,” the Court said.
Therefore, the Court deemed the application lacking in merit and subsequently rejected it.
If this is the new ordar of law, Raw violence will be a last resort.
Law and order this the byproduct of society and morality.
Those busterd judges will be solely responsible for the enormous violence awaiting.