India removes a 150-year old British adultry from the crime list.

[aupmanyav]

Until 2018, in Indian law, adultery was defined as sex between a man and a woman without the consent of the woman's husband. The man was liable for prosecution and could be sentenced for up to five years (even if he himself was unmarried) whereas the married woman cannot be jailed.

With the recent Supreme Court judgment, the law has been rescinded (A woman is not a property of husband). Adultery remains a cause for divorce and a man or woman could ask for a divorce on its basis.

But I see a problem here. Marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman. Adultery breaks that covenant. If the woman intends to enter into a sexual relationship with a person other than the husband, then in fairness, she should first ask for a divorce and then strike a relationship with another person. The same rule should apply to a man with adulterous intent.

 

[Tigers!]

You logic is impeccable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Until 2018, in Indian law, adultery was defined as sex between a man and a woman without the consent of the woman's husband. The man was liable for prosecution and could be sentenced for up to five years (even if he himself was unmarried) whereas the married woman cannot be jailed.

With the recent Supreme Court judgment, the law has been rescinded (A woman is not a property of husband). Adultery remains a cause for divorce and a man or woman could ask for a divorce on its basis.

But I see a problem here. Marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman. Adultery breaks that covenant. If the woman intends to enter into a sexual relationship with a person other than the husband, then in fairness, she should first ask for a divorce and then strike a relationship with another person. The same rule should apply to a man with adulterous intent.

Well, generally, even if there is no marriage, if two people are in a relationship and promised (perhaps implicitly, perhaps not) fidelity, they should not be unfaithful. They should first end the relationship. But that would not justify making it a crime to be unfaithful, regardless of whether they are legally married.

Also, generally speaking, breach of contract should not be criminalized. Usually, the person who breaches the contract has a moral obligation to pay compensation, and legally, the other person is entitled to sue for compensation. However, there are contracts that are regulated so that any party (or at least one of the parties) can end the contract without paying compensation, and any clause to the contrary is legally null (e.g., employees are in many places able to resign without paying compensation, perhaps with a brief forewarning). I don't know how it works in India in the case of marriage (i.e., is there a legal right to end the marriage without paying compensation?).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe the real issue is the question of how actually destructive or harmful is adulterous behavior? Is it really just a sort of emotional crime, if there is such a thing? The word has a negative connotation but is that unfair? The practice only exists because it is obviously good for human survival, as is the case with many other organisms. Should we really resent the red-headed kid who looks like the mailman?

 

[steve_bank]

The nan should be allowed to physically keep his wife in proper obeisance, don't you agree aupmanyav?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Until 2018, in Indian law, adultery was defined as sex between a man and a woman without the consent of the woman's husband. The man was liable for prosecution and could be sentenced for up to five years (even if he himself was unmarried) whereas the married woman cannot be jailed.

With the recent Supreme Court judgment, the law has been rescinded (A woman is not a property of husband). Adultery remains a cause for divorce and a man or woman could ask for a divorce on its basis.

But I see a problem here. Marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman. Adultery breaks that covenant. If the woman intends to enter into a sexual relationship with a person other than the husband, then in fairness, she should first ask for a divorce and then strike a relationship with another person. The same rule should apply to a man with adulterous intent.

Yes, that's just called manners. If you make a promise to somebody and you want to break it, you should talk to that person and nullify the promise before doing so. If you don't, you're kind of a prick.

Why would one need a "cause" as a basis for divorce, though? What's wrong with "I just don't want to be married to you anymore"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So it's now not illegal to cheat with 150 year old English people?

Or is not now not illegal for 150 year old English people to cheat?

 

[aupmanyav]

I don't know how it works in India in the case of marriage (i.e., is there a legal right to end the marriage without paying compensation?).

By mutual consent (then it is between the man and the wife). Otherwise it is tough for man as well as woman. Both partners are entitled to half the assets and/or maintenance which is perhaps not as tough here as in US (according to my limited knowledge of law. Nearing the 52nd anniversary of our marriage, both of us have nowhere else to go but to each other ).

 

[aupmanyav]

A fall-out of the Supreme Court decision on adultery:

"Chennai Woman Commits Suicide After Husband Justifies Extramarital Affair As SC Decriminalises Adultery"
"A woman from Chennai ended her life after her husband justified having an extramarital affair. The incident comes after the Supreme Court ruled that adultery is no longer a crime in the country, eventually scrapping Section 497 of IPC. .. Pusplatha, 24, married John Paul Franklin, 27, two years ago. The couple had a love marriage after strong opposition from their parents. They had a child."
https://www.indiatimes.com/news/ind...air-as-sc-decriminalises-adultery-353989.html

For this reason, some Women's organiztions are opposing this law. Perhaps some fine-tuning is required.

For the moment, Muslims are dealt with with their traditional laws, but the Government desires to have one law for all people.

 

[aupmanyav]

The man should be allowed to physically keep his wife in proper obeisance, don't you agree aupmanyav?

And he should live according to what the wife desire. Actually, RigVeda gives her much more powers:

42. Be ye not parted; dwell ye here reach the full time of human life.
With sons and grandsons sport and play, rejoicing in your own abode.
43. So may Prajāpati bring children forth to us; may Aryaman adorn us till old age come nigh.
Not inauspicious enter thou thy husband's house: bring blessing to our bipeds and our quadrupeds.
44. Not evil-eyed, no slayer of thy husband, bring weal to cattle, radiant, gentle-hearted;
Loving the Gods, delightful, bearing heroes, bring blessing to our quadrupeds and bipeds.
45. O Bounteous Indra, make this bride blessed in her sons and fortunate.
Vouchsafe to her ten sons, and make her husband the eleventh man.
46. Over thy husband's father and thy husband's mother bear full sway.
Over the sister of thy lord, over his brothers rule supreme.
47. So may the Universal Gods, so may the Waters join our hearts.
May Mātariśvan, Dhātar, and Destri together bind us close.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10085.htm

 

[aupmanyav]

Why would one need a "cause" as a basis for divorce, though? What's wrong with "I just don't want to be married to you anymore"?

Any kind of incompatibility can be a reason for divorce.

So it's now not illegal to cheat with 150 year old English people?
Or is not now not illegal for 150 year old English people to cheat?

At the moment, it is not illegal to cheat with the new Indian law. Of course, if anyone is aggrieved, they can always ask for a divorce. Infidelity remains a reason for divorce.

The practice only exists because it is obviously good for human survival, as is the case with many other organisms. Should we really resent the red-headed kid who looks like the mailman?

It is unfair for the psychology of the partner, it could be harmful for the children and therefore to the society. It is not necessary to marry to live together in India. It is not illegal even for the 'alternately inclined'. Supreme Court has declared that if the people are adults, it is nobody else's business.

Hah, India is changing, India has changed.