infidelity

ADULTERY – MAN’S CRIME WOMAN’S RIGHT

I was invited by Focus News Channel today to debate on Supreme Courts recent decision that a man’s illicit affair can not be construed as Cruelty under IPC 498A. Their cab  got stuck and hence I couldn’t make it to the show (though I was connected via phone later.) Like all my debates, I had prepared some notes on this matter too and thought since I was not able to speak all, why not blog it.

SO as shared by the man’s counsel on TV – the matter relates to Rakesh Ghusabhai Chaurasia – a man not so well to do – who became a victim of LOVE. His love blossomed when he was a child, and she remained the love of his life. As destiny would have it, she got married to someone else and he to someone else too. His sweethearts marriage broke and she started meeting him again (please understand the woman comes back to him.) He falls again for her. His marriage collapses. She complains and he given in writing that he would stop meeting her. She doesn’t believe him and doubts that he is still involved. Situation worsens. He eventually confesses, he can not live without his love. She breaks down and decides to go back to her parent’s house after the festival of Holi. By this time, both of them had already started living separately in the same house. Barely 3 days before the festival, she consumes poison and ends her life. Her family complains and police files an FIR loaded with sections – 498A, 306 etc etc. Since marriage is already more than 8 years old, it doesn’t register a dowry death. Not only is the man locked up, his father, mother, his paramour, elder brother, his wife are all accused in the case. More details of the case can be filed below in the Judgment. Trial court convicts him. High Court also convicts him. SC acquits all, taking little time to realize that the HC and Trial court perhaps got swayed by emotions!

NOW – Why does this debate become important to me?

My fight in this field basically started with a similar case, opposite in gender. I was facing this woman who was adulterous and when her relationship was exposed, she cried DOWRY! When I asked lawyers/judges about what can be done in such a case, they told me “Even if a woman sleeps with another man in the house of her husband, he can barely do anything against her” I was shocked! But they told me the truth. While IT IS A CRIME for a man to venture out of his marriage, no matter how unhappy he is, no matter how abusive his wife is, no matter if his wife makes him feel like a piece of shit, no matter how arrogant his wife is, no matter how CHOKED he feels in the marriage, IT IS A MATTER OF RIGHT today for women – whether in rural pockets or urban pockets to venture out of marriage if they feel like! Reasons could be as ridiculous as her husband not earning enough but she can just do it and get away with it.

Read this: Out of all Paternity test cases conducted annually in Gujrat, in 98% cases, women fail the test!!! Which means that in 98% cases, the father is not the biological father of the child. Let me go a step ahead and confidently tell you that out of these cases 95% cases would be where husband would be facing a dowry case, domestic violence case by his wife. She would be asking for a huge settlement amount and alimony even though she is the wrong doer in the relationship. So, basically even if she has given birth to someone else’s child, there is little you can do. AND if you raise voice against it, you have DOZEN of cases waiting for you. Not only you – your entire family – because dragging someone in a dowry case/498A is as easy as saying “She/He demanded dowry from me”. You don’t need any evidence as you can read in the judgment below. The allegations on the mother and father of the man were that they snatched her salary – SO they can be 498A accused!

Read this: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-woman-living-with-husband-cannot-seek-maintenance-from-paramour-bombay-high-court-2057973

So, a woman who is already married, gets into a relationship with another man and has filed for maintenance from that man..instead of chiding her for indulging in adultery, the court is telling that a woman can not seek maintenance from paramour. I mean…how more ridiculous can it be?

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HndQ8w2vXU

Two men commit suicide as their wives are busy with paramours. Leave 44/42 minute suicide video telling their stories. In one case, man had earlier written to the police of mental harassment by wife, but little did the police do anything to help him. He eventually hanged himself.

IPC 497 – the law for adultery does not hold a woman guilty of adultery but instead the man who she is adulterous with as the one guilty. It doesn’t matter whether the man knew that the woman is married or not, it is HE WHO PAYS. All that a husband can do if his wife is adulterous is file for divorce on grounds of adultery which is NOTHING LESS THAN IMPOSSIBLE to be proven in the court of law. And if he objects to it, he gets several cases by wife.

adultery

Another good read on adultery by “THE ELITE WOMEN”  who are cozying upto and running away with their gym instructors, taking huge PAYOUT as well.

Have a good laugh reading this too: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Teacher-dupes-married-woman/articleshow/46293026.cms A married woman leaves her husband and kids and runs away with her lover and then later gets him only arrested. I MEAN …what the HECK!

Lemme add some spice to all this. WOMEN ORGANIZATIONS have now demanded that whether the child is born from the wedlock or outside the wedlock, a husband MUST pay for the CHILD. This demand is a part of the amendments to the domestic violence act.

When a man is adulterous, WOMEN label him cheap, sick, irresponsible, pervert, womanizer, bastard and much more. His wife is treated as the biggest victim and most women organizations ask such women to file several cases on him and “TEACH HIM A LESSON”

But when a woman is adulterous, even then it is a MAN’S FAULT. He must have been a psycho, alcoholic, wife beater, sexual assaulter or Impotent, stingy, leech that his woman went to another man.

When a woman is adulterous, it’s earth shattering for a man. When a man is adulterous, it’s emotional trauma for a woman. Still, laws have absolutely no concern for men whose wives cheat on them. A woman should NEVER BE PUNISHED come what may. She is always treated that gullible doll who is such a victim of circumstances.

IF THIS IS NOT GENDER BIAS WHAT IS?

If this wasn’t enough, I am now coming across cases almost on a daily basis where wives have got their husbands murdered with help of their paramours. A simple google search of #HusbandMurder or #CrimeAgainstMen would take you to recent such cases that I have tweeted. I know of a sister whose brother was killed barely a month after his marriage by his wife and her paramour. His head smashed while his wife dropped crocodile tears at home.

The ANCHOR on the show kept discussing if this SC verdict would give a free hand to married men to be adulterous. I beg to ask her – which court verdict told women that they can go and indulge in adultery? Why is it presumed that men want nothing in life – a peaceful home/family/children/decent job – but WOMEN ONLY? Why is it presumed that if laws weren’t there all that men on this earth would be doing is go around and have SEX?

Why is it that a man is called Sexual Pervert if he goes around and gets laid while a woman is called Sexually Liberated if she is getting laid?

The BIGGEST QUESTION OF ALL – WHY IS IT THAT A MAN’S ENTIRE FAMILY IS TAGGED CRIMINAL IF HE HAS “ALLEGEDLY” DONE SOMETHING WRONG? I have never seen police registering case against entire family and relatives of a woman if she has gone wrong in a marital relationship. THEN WHY ARE MEN AND THEIR ENTIRE FAMILIES BEING VICTIMIZED?

To end this note, before the judgment begin, know that this entire family has been doomed for life. All family members were incarcerated for long before getting out on Bail. They had to leave their home. They had to become NOMADS. Now, they would be starting their life from scratch. WHY – because a WOMAN DIED!

                            ====================================================

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2009

Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors. …   Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat                        … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal, by  special  leave,  is  directed  against  the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the High Court of
Gujarat at  Ahmedabad  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  444/2005  whereby  the
Division Bench has affirmed  the  conviction  recorded  by  the  learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, who had found the appellants guilty
of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306, 201 and 114  of  the
Indian Penal Code,  1860  (‘IPC’  for  short)  and  sentenced  Ghusabhai
Raisinghbhai Chorasia, appellant no.1 to suffer five years imprisonment,
Rakesh  Ghusabhai  Chorasia,  appellant   no.2    to   suffer   rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.500/-  with  a
default clause and other accused persons, namely, Bakuben W/o  Ghusabhai
Chorasia and Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai, appellant nos. 3 and 4 herein
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three  years  and  to  pay  fine  of
Rs.250/- with a default clause  under  Section  306  IPC.   That  apart,
separate sentences were imposed under Section  498A  and  201  with  the
stipulation that all the sentences would run concurrently.  Be it noted,
the appellants were tried along with two other accused persons,  namely,
Sangitaben  w/o.  Vijaybhai  and  Vijay  Ghusabhai  Chorasia  who   were
acquitted by the learned trial Judge.  It is also apt to note here  that
the State had also preferred two criminal appeals, one  for  enhancement
of sentence and the other challenging the acquittal  of  the  other  two
accused persons and both the  appeals  were  dismissed  along  with  the
appeal filed by the appellants in a common judgment.
2.     The prosecution case, bereft of unnecessary details, is that  the
marriage  between  the  deceased  Biniben  and  Rakesh  was   solemnized
approximately eight years before the date of occurrence, i.e.  4.3.2004.
As put forth by the prosecution, Rakesh, husband of  the  deceased,  had
illicit  relationsHIP  with  Jasuben,  a  divorcee.   Despite  the  said
situation two children were born in the wedlock  but  the  compatibility
between the husband and wife and the harmony of family life could not be
sustained.  When the first child was three months old, the deceased  was
driven out by her husband and she came to her parental home  and  stayed
there for sometime.  After the intervention of the elders and  relatives
a settlement was arrived at and thereafter she came to stay in  her  in-
laws house.  It was the further case of the prosecution that the husband
was keen in his extra-marital affair and that had led  to  more  marital
discord and bitterness.  The in-laws, as alleged, used to take away  the
income earned by her.  A time came when she was compelled to stay on the
terrace of the house where she committed suicide on 4th of March,  2004.

3.    As the case of the prosecution further gets uncurtained, the  dead
body was cremated without informing the parents of the deceased and  the
factum of the death was reported by the father-in-law of the deceased on
14th of March, 2004 and eventually the mother of the  deceased  came  to
know about the death on 17th of March, 2004 and thereafter  reported  at
the Police Station in Jamnagar.  After  the  criminal  law  was  set  in
motion, the investigating agency proceeded with  the  investigation  and
recorded the statements of 25 witnesses and eventually placed the charge-
sheet under Sections 498A, 306 and Section 201 read with Section 114  of
the Indian Penal Code, before the competent court.   After  the  charge-
sheet was filed, the learned Magistrate  committed  the  matter  to  the
Court of Session.
4.    The accused persons abjured their guilt and wanted to be tried.
5.    During the trial,  the  prosecution  in  order  to  establish  the
charges levelled against the accused persons, examined 25 witnesses  and
exhibited certain documents.
6.    The learned trial Judge placing reliance on the ocular as well  as
the documentary evidence came to hold that four accused persons, namely,
father-in-law A-1, husband A-2, mother-in-law A-3  and  the  woman  with
whom the husband was having illicit relationship,  A-4,  guilty  of  the
offences.  However, the trial Judge acquitted the elder brother  of  the
husband and his wife for lack of evidence.
7.    Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of  conviction  and
order of sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.  444  of  2005.
As stated earlier, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of  2005
for enhancement of  sentence  and  Criminal  Appeal  No.  2410  of  2005
assailing the judgment of the acquittal of two accused persons.
8.    The High  Court  appreciating  the  evidence  brought  on  record,
declined to  interfere  in  the  appeals  preferred  by  the  State  and
resultantly all the appeals stood dismissed.
9.    Be it noted, the  principal  witnesses  on  whom  the  prosecution
relied are Dakshaben Shantilal Shah, PW-9,  a  social  worker  at  Vikas
Vidhyalay (Vadhvan), Miraben Devsinhbhai, PW-21, sister of the deceased,
Champaben  Devsinhbhai,  PW-18,  mother  of  the  deceased,  Kanaiyabhai
Devsinhbhai, PW-19, brother of the deceased and Natubhai  Hirabhai,  PW-
17, Sarpanch of village Rajsitapur.
10.   Accused persons in their statements  recorded  under  Section  313
took the plea that there was a divorce  between  the  deceased  and  the
accused No. 2, her husband; that she was staying on the terrace  of  the
house; that she committed suicide by  consuming  poison;  and  that  the
accused persons had no role in it.    The defence, to  substantiate  its
plea, examined one witness and got two documents exhibited.
11.   We have  heard  Mr.  Harish  Raichura,  learned  counsel  for  the
appellants and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the State.
12.   On a careful scrutiny of the findings of the learned  trial  Judge
and that of the High Court, it is noticeable that both the  Courts  have
found that cruelty, as alleged by the prosecution under Section 498A IPC
was established as a result of which the deceased committed suicide.  It
is quite clear from the findings and evidence on record that  there  was
no demand of dowry.  The learned trial Judge as well as the  High  Court
has proceeded on the base that there was cruelty as per the  first  limb
of Section 498A IPC.
13.   The singular issue that requires  to  be  scrutinized  is  whether
there was such cruelty by the husband and his relations that could  have
driven the deceased  to  commit  suicide.   The  stand  of  the  accused
persons, as has been indicated hereinabove, was  that  the  husband  had
already divorced the deceased and she was staying on the terrace.  On  a
proper x-ray of the material brought on record, it is manifest that  the
prosecution has brought on evidence, three documents, exhibits 65 to 67,
on record to show that there was divorce.  The sister of  the  deceased,
Miraben Devsinhbhai, PW-21,  has  categorically  deposed  that  she  had
talked to the deceased on telephone before her death  and  the  deceased
had told her that there has been  a  divorce  between  her  husband  and
herself and she was staying on the terrace of the house and  will  leave
for the parental home after the ‘Holi’ festival.
14.   The documents that have been produced by the  prosecution, namely,
Exhibits 67 to 69 have not been believed by the learned trial  Judge  as
well as the High Court on the ground that  there  is  some  unacceptable
discrepancy.
15.   At this juncture, it is  appropriate  to  mention  that  the  Holi
festival in the said year fell on 6.3.2004 and the occurrence took place
on March 4, 2004.  It is also noticeable that the sister of the deceased
had volunteered  to  speak  about  the  conversation  of  divorce.   The
document shows that there was a divorce as per the  customs.   There  is
material on record to show that she was staying on the terrace.  In this
factual backdrop what is to be seen is whether there has been a  cruelty
which  compelled  her  to  commit  suicide.   In  this  regard,  we  may
fruitfully refer to Section 498A of the IPC, which reads as under:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a  woman  subjecting  her  to
cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband  of
a woman, subjects  such  woman  to  cruelty  shall  be  punished  with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

(a) any wilful 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

(b) 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.”

16.   This Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State  of  Maharashtra[1],
examining the scope of 498A, has observed thus:
“The basic purport of the statutory provision is  to  avoid  “cruelty”
which stands defined  by  attributing  a  specific  statutory  meaning
attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances  have
been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word “cruelty”
as is expressed by the legislatures: whereas Explanation (a)  involves
three specific situations viz.  (i)  to  drive  the  woman  to  commit
suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or
health, both mental  and  physical,  and  thus  involving  a  physical
torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence  of  physical
injury but the legislature thought it fit  to  include  only  coercive
harassment which obviously as  the  legislative  intent  expressed  is
equally heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one  is  patent,
the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions
of the statute since the same would also  embrace  the  attributes  of
“cruelty” in terms of Section 498-A.”

17.   In Gurnaib Singh  V.  State  of  Punjab[2],  while  analyzing  the
aforesaid  provision,  it  has  been  opined  that  Clause  (a)  of  the
Explanation to Section 498A IPC defines cruelty  to  mean  “any  willful
conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to  drive  the  woman  to
commit suicide”.  Clause (b) of the  Explanation  pertains  to  unlawful
demand and Clause (a) can take in its ambit mental cruelty.
18.   From the aforesaid authorities it is quite clear  that  the  first
limb of Section 498A, which refers to cruelty, has nothing  to  do  with
demand of dowry.  In the present case, in fact, there is  no  demand  of
dowry.  If the evidence is appropriately appreciated, the  deceased  was
pained and disturbed as the husband was having an  illicit  affair  with
the appellant no.4.  Whether such a situation would  amount  to  cruelty
under the first limb of Section 498A IPC is to  be  seen.   A  two-Judge
Bench of this Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal V. State of  Gujarat[3],
while dealing with extra marital relationship, has held thus:
“Marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest  of
one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like
companionship, living under the same roof,  sexual  relation  and  the
exclusive enjoyment of  them,  to  have  children,  their  upbringing,
services in the home, support, affection,  love,  liking  and  so  on.
Extramarital relationship as such is not defined in  the  Penal  Code.
Though, according to  the  prosecution  in  this  case,  it  was  that
relationship which ultimately led to  mental  harassment  and  cruelty
within the Explanation to Section 498-A and that A-1 had  abetted  the
wife to commit suicide.”

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
“We are of the view that the mere fact that the husband has  developed
some intimacy with another, during the  subsistence  of  marriage  and
failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not  amount
to “cruelty”, but it must be of such a nature as is  likely  to  drive
the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the Explanation to Section
498-A IPC. Harassment, of course, need not be in the form of  physical
assault and even mental harassment also would come within the  purview
of Section 498-A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to
person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some
may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence,  to  some  it
may be unbearable and a weak person may think of  ending  one’s  life.
We, on facts, found that the alleged extramarital relationship was not
of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide  or  that  A-1
had ever intended or  acted  in  such  a  manner  which  under  normal
circumstances, would drive the wife to commit suicide.”

The Court further proceeded to state:
“Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such  suicide,  shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10  years
and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is
also on account of mental disturbance caused by  mental  and  physical
cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306,  the  prosecution
has to establish that a person has committed suicide and  the  suicide
was abetted by the accused. The prosecution has  to  establish  beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and  the  accused
abetted the commission of suicide. But for  the  alleged  extramarital
relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and  immoral,  nothing
has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the  accused  had
provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.”
19.    After  holding  as  aforesaid,  the  Court  found  on  facts  and
especially referring to  suicide  note  that  one  can  infer  that  the
deceased was so possessive of her  husband,  and  was  always  under  an
emotional stress that she might lose her husband and that apart she  had
exonerated the husband and accordingly it  would  not  come  within  the
scope and ambit of Section 306 IPC.
20.   Coming to the facts of the present  case,  it  is  seen  that  the
factum of divorce has not been believed by the learned trial  Judge  and
the High Court.  But the fact remains is that the husband and  the  wife
had started living separately in the same house  and  the  deceased  had
told her sister that there was severance of  status  and  she  would  be
going to her parental home after the ‘Holi’ festival.  True it is, there
is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same  is
proven, we are of the considered  opinion  that  cruelty,  as  envisaged
under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not  get  attracted.   It
would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a  degree
that it would drive the wife  to  commit  suicide.   Mere  extra-marital
relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has  been
said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a  different
character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that
the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife  to  commit
suicide.  In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in  an
illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some
other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high  degree
of mental cruelty,  the  Explanation  to  Section  498A  which  includes
cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.
21.   Presently, adverting to  the  involvement  of  the  other  accused
persons, that is, appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4, we find that  there  is  no
allegation of any kind of physical torture.   The  evidence  brought  on
record against them with regard to cruelty is absolutely sketchy and not
convincing.  It has been alleged that the mother-in-law used to rob  her
money which she earned as wages.  The said  fact  has  really  not  been
established.  As far as appellant no. 4, Jesuben, is concerned, there is
only one singular allegation that at one public place, i.e. in a ‘mela’,
she had threatened the deceased  that  she  would  be  divorced  by  her
husband.  On the basis of the said evidence, it is difficult to  sustain
the conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.   Once  we  are  holding
that the accused-appellants are not guilty of the offence under  Section
306 and 498A IPC, the conviction under  Section  201  IPC  is  also  not
sustainable.
22.   In view of the aforesaid analysis,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  the
conviction and sentence of all the appellants are set  aside.   As  they
are on bail, they be discharged of their bail bonds.

………………………………………………..J.
[DIPAK MISRA]

…………………………………………………J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 18, 2015.
———————–
[1]  (2002) 5 SCC 177
[2]  (2013) 7 SCC 108
[3]  (2013) 10 SCC 48

Advertisements