Adultery यानि भारतीय दंड संहिता का धारा 497 पुरुषवादी मानसिकता का चरम उदाहरण है
Adultery यानि भारतीय दंड संहिता का धारा 497 पुरुषवादी मानसिकता का चरम उदाहरण है।इस धारा के तहत यदि किसी की पत्नी उसके सहमति के बगैर किसी दूसरे पुरुष से यौन संबंध बनाती है तो उस दूसरे पुरुष को 5 साल तक की सजा हो सकती है।लेकिन यदि पति अपने पत्नी की सहमति के बगैर किसी दूसरे महिला से यौन-संबंध बनाए तो फिर इसके लिए पति के विरुध्द कोई सजा का प्रावधान नहीँ है।जब पत्नी करे तो सजा,जब पति करे तो कोई सजा नहीँ।
मैँ इस धारा मेँ उक्त संशोधन के लिए पटना उच्च न्यायालय मेँ जनहित याचिका दायर कर रहा हूँ।इस याचिका मेँ ये भी मांग की जा रही है कि ऐसे पति को सजा देने के साथ साथ उस दूसरी महिला के विरुध्द बांड बनाया जाए और उसके विरुध्द Remedial Action लिया जाए।चूँकि धारा 497 के तहत दूसरे पुरुष के सिवाय Adultery करने वाली पत्नी को सजा नहीँ दिया जा सकता,इसलिए इनके विरुध्द भी बांड बनाने और Remedial action लेने का मांग किया गया है।
18 वर्ष से ज्यादा उम्र की महिला जो किसी दूसरे के पति के साथ संबंध बनाती है, चाहे विवाहित हो या अविवाहित,सभी को Adultery की परिभाषा मेँ रखने की मांग की गई है।
यदि पत्नी के पास पति के विरुध्द मुकदमा करने और उस दूसरी महिला के विरुध्द बांड बनाने के लिए शिकायत करने का अधिकार होता तो नाजायज संबंध के कारण की गई कई सारी हत्या और आत्महत्या रुक सकती थी।गीतिका शर्मा-गोपाल कांडा मामला,मधुमिता शुक्ला-अमरमनी त्रिपाठी मामला,शेहला मसूद-जाहिदा परवेज-धुव्रनारायण सिंह मामला और भंवरी देवी-महिपाल मदेरणा मामला का केस स्टडी करके ये बताने का कोशिश किया गया है कि यदि इन मामलोँ मेँ नाजायज संबंध बनाने वाले पुरुषोँ के पत्नियोँ को मुकदमा करने का अधिकार मिलता तो घटित हत्या और आत्महत्या रुक सकती थी।
धारा 494 और 495 का उदाहरण देकर क्रमश: ये बताने की कोशिश की गई है कि जब पति या पत्नी के रहते कोई दूसरा शादी करता है या जब दूसरी शादी करते वक्त पहली शादी वाली बात को छिपाया जाता है तो ऐसा करने वाले पति हो या पत्नी,दोनोँ के लिए बराबर सजा है,फिर Adultery के लिए पति के विरुध्द सजा क्योँ नहीँ है?
आप सभी मित्रोँ का जनसमर्थन और आर्थिक सहयोग अपेक्षित है।
जनहित याचिका नीचे प्रस्तुत है-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of Public Interest Litigation:
Rahul Kumar
………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law and Justice
.… … Respondent
INDEX
Subject-Public Interest Litigation
S.No Particulars Page No.
1. PIL Under Article 226 with Affidavit 1-11
2. Vakalatnama on the behalf of petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of
Public Interest Litigation
Under Article 226
Of the Indian Constitution
And in the matter of
Rahul Kumar S/O- Jagannath Ray Resident Of Vill & Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan, Distt-Samastipur,State-Bihar,PIN-848207
……………………...………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law and Justice
At-Shastri Bhawan,A-Wing, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,New
Delhi,110001
……………………………… … Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of Public Interest Litigation:
Rahul Kumar
………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary,Ministry Of Law and Justice
.… … Respondent
A Public Interest Litigation Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution
for the following amendments in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code,1860:-
1.The wife should have the right to prosecute her husband in case of
illicit relationship committed by him with another woman not being his
wife.
2.In case of adultery committed by one’s wife, that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond, as she can’t be punishable as
abettor under section 497 of the IPC.
3.In case of illicit relationship committed by another woman with
one’s husband, that another woman should undergo remedial action and
bond.
4.Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of 18,should be
kept under the definition of adultery in order to take remedial action
and furnish bond against her.
To
THE HONB’LE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND
HER COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HONB’LE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
PATNA
The Humble Petition on behalf of
the Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
1.That the writ petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation
and that the Petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any
other person/ institution/ body and there is no motive other than of
public interest in filing the writ petition.
ABOUT THE PETITIONER:-
2.That the petitioner is a student of Economics Honours keeping
Keen interest in judicial reforms. The petitioner is not filing
writ petition
Under any registered society rather being self motivated.
3.That the writ petitioner is seeking following amendments in the
section 497 of the IPC:-
(i) The wife should have the right to prosecute her husband in case of
illicit relationship committed by him with another woman not being his
wife.
(ii) In case of adultery committed by one’s wife, that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond, as she can’t be punishable as
abettor under section 497 of the IPC.
(iii) In case of illicit relationship committed by another woman with
one’s husband, that another woman should undergo remedial action and
bond.
(iv) Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of 18,
should be kept under the definition of adultery in order to take
remedial action and furnish bond against her.
4.That the section 497 of the IPC is biased against women and against
the dignity,fundamental rights and human rights conferred to women
being a citizen of India.
As the section 497 of the IPC provides:-
“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 not be punishable as an
abettor.”
5.That after the plain reading of the text of section 497,it is
evident that only another man who commits illicit relationship with
one’s wife can be punished.
The man who commits illicit relationship with another woman not being
his wife can’t be punished. This provision is gender biased because if
the illicit relationship is committed without the consent of one’s
husband, then the unlawful partner of such wife can be punished but if
illicit relationship is committed without the consent of wife by her
husband, then he can’t be punished. In one case, male can be punished
if he commits illicit relationship with one ’s wife but in another
case when he commits illicit relationship with another woman against
the will of his wife, then he can’t be punished. It is totally gender
biased.
6.That In case of adultery committed by one’s wife, that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond, as she can’t be punishable as
abettor under section 497 of the IPC. Similarly, In case of illicit
relationship committed by another woman with one’s husband, that
another woman should undergo remedial action and bond. Remedial action
stands for treatment in terms of her counselling and sending her such
place which can help her to reduce her such unlawful feelings and
change her psychological condition. Bond shall be furnished in order
to warn and stop her to not do such further by making her legally
bound to not do so.
7. That Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of
18,should be kept under the definition of adultery in order to take
remedial action and furnish bond against her.
8.That sections 494 and 495 of the IPC are not gender biased as these
sections provide equal punishment for both wife and husband for the
offence described under these sections but the section 497 says
nothing against the adultery committed by one’s husband against his
wife.
Section 494 Provides:-
“494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.-- Whoever,
having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such
marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such
husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine. Exception.- This section does not extend to any
person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void
by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts
a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such
husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have
been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years,
and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within
that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage
shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom
such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the
same are within his or her knowledge.”
Section 495 Provides:-
“495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person
with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.-- Whoever commits the
offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from
the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact
of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
9. That Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife and Same
offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom
subsequent marriage is contracted is punishable for both husband and
wife,then why only the wife and her unlawful partner will be observed
as guilty in case of adultery when the same offence is also committed
by husband and his unlawful partner.
10. Case Study of Some Highlighted News Related To Adultery
(i) Shehla Masood – Zahida Pervez- Dhruv Narayan Singh sex scandal (2011)
Dhruv Narayan Singh, BJP MLA of Madhya Pradesh, was accused of having
illicit relationship with many women and it resulted in the muder of
one her lovers, Shehla Masood, an RTI activist, who was got eliminated
through contract killers hired by Dhruv’s another lover Zahida
Pervez.
(ii) Gopal Kanda & Geetika Sharma scandal (2012)
The story of Gopal Kanda, a former Haryana minister, was a typical
rags-to-riches story before destiny pulled the rug from under his feet
and he was incarcerated for abetting the suicide of Geetika Sharma, a
former air-hostess of now-defunct MDLR airlines owned by Kanda.
Geetika Sharma committed suicide by hanging herself on August 5, 2012
and left behind a suicide note accusing Gopal Kanda of deliberately
harassing her and leaving her with no option than to end her life.
Police investigation revealed that Gopal Kanda targeted Geetika from
the day one of her joining the MDLR airlines. Gopal Kanda made it
mandatory for Geetika to meet him every evening. It is said that
Geetika had illicit relationship with Kanda and she underwent abortion
a few times.
MDLR was shut down in 2009 and in October 2010 it became a part of
Emirates Airlines. Geetika moved over to Dubai to join Emirates
Airlines but Gopal Kanda sent a letter to Emirates saying that she had
been a poor employee and had defaulted on a loan. Kanda wanted her to
quit her job and return to India.
Gopal Kanda, on the hand, denied all the allegations and said that he
always tried to help Geetika Sharma and even financed her MBA course.
Not only this, he made her the chairperson of the trust that ran an
international school at Sirsa.
Police investigations revealed that on August 3, a day before Geetika
committed suicide, Kanda's advocate pressurized her over phone to sign
on a petition filed in Goa to quash the FIR lodged against another
MDLR employee, Ankita Singh.
It was same Ankita Singh who was mentioned by Geetika in her suicide
note. Geetika had alleged that Kanda had illicit relationship with
Ankita and that Kanda had fathered a child with Ankita.
It is said that Geetika was jealous of Ankita and she had even fought
with Ankita warning her to keep a distance from Kanda. Kanda was a
typical philanderer and a frustrated Geetika committed suicide.
Gopal Kanda was arrested on August 18 for abetting the suicide of
Geetika and is still languishing in the jail.
(iii) Mahipal Maderna – Bhanwari Devi Scandal (2011):
Bhanwari Devi, a 36 year old auxiliary nurse and midwife, from
Rajasthan came into the limelight after her husband alleged that
Mahipal Maderna, the Congress minister in state government, got his
wife abducted.
The investigation of the case revealed that Bhanwari Devi was
blackmailing Maderna and Congress legislator Malkhan Singh and
demanded crores of rupees based on a CD in which Maderna and others
were seen in a compromising position with Bhanwari Devi.
Maderna and Malkhan finally decided to get her eliminated with the
help of supari killers. Maderna is under custody and court has framed
charges against him.
(iv) Amarmani Tripathi –Madhumita Shukla scandal (2003):
Madhumita Shukla, a 24-year old poetess , was gunned down by two
assailants in her apartment in Lucknow on April 9, 2003. Madhumita was
seven months pregnant at the time of murder.
Police investigation revealed that Madhumita was a lover of Amarmani
Tripathi, a minister in UP government.
The investigation further revealed that Madhumita was killed at the
instructions of Madhumani Tripathi , the wife of Amarmani Tripathi,
who got furious after she came to know of Madhumita’s affair with her
husband.
Both Amarmani Tripathi and his wife Madhumani were arrested and
sentenced to life imprisonment.
11. Conclusion On the Case Study of Some Highlighted News Related To Adultery
That the burning question is, whether the murder of Shehla Masood,
Bhanwari Devi and Madhumita Shukla could have been prevented and
whether the suicide of Geetika Sharma Could have been prevented if the
wife of those whose husbands were involved in illicit relationship
with above women would have the right to prosecute her husband and
lodge complaint against these above another women by the wife of these
husbands in order to furnish bond of these another women.
Shehla Masood was murdered by Zahida Pervez because she was also one
lover of Dhruv Narayan Singh.If the wife of Dhruv Narayan Singh would
have the right to prosecute her husband and lodge complaint against
Shehla Masood,Zahida Pervez etc,then the both women would have to
furnish bond and leave the relationship with Dhruv Narayan Singh and
Dhruv Narayan Singh would have to undergo imprisonment and thus
nothing like murder would occur due to such illicit relationship.
Bhanwari Devi was murdered by Mahipal Maderna because he was
blackmailed by her.If the wife of Mahipal Maderna would have the
right to prosecute her husband and lodge complaint against Bhanwari
Devi,then Bhanwari Devi would have to furnish bond and leave the
relationship with Mahipal Maderna and Mahipal Maderna would have to
undergo imprisonment and further there would be no blackmailing
committed by Bhanwari Devi and thus nothing like murder would occur
due to such illicit relationship.
Mudhumita Shukla was murdered by Amarmani Tripathi and his wife
Madhumani Tripathi because Madhumani Tripathi got frustrated and
forced her husband to remove Madhumita from her way.If the wife of
Amarmani Tripathi would have the right to prosecute her husband and
lodge complaint against Madhumita Shukla,then Madhumita Shukla would
have to furnish bond and leave the relationship with Amarmani Tripathi
and Amarmani Tripathi would have to undergo imprisonment and further
there would be frustration in the mind of Madhumani Tripathi and thus
nothing like murder would occur due to such illicit relationship.
Geetika Sharma committed suicide because she was tortured and
blackmailed by Gopal Kanda and she had jealousy with Ankita Singh.If
the wife of Gopal Kanda would have the right to prosecute her
husband and lodge complaint against Geetika Sharma,Ankita Singh
etc,then Geetika Sharma,Ankita Singh etc would have to furnish
bond and leave the illicit relationship with Gopal Kanda and Gopal
Kanda would have to undergo imprisonment and further there would be
no blackmailing and torturing committed against Geetika Sharma and
jealousy within her and thus nothing like suicide would occur due to
such illicit relationship.
12.AVERMENTS:
(i) That the petitioner is the citizen of India.
(ii) That the Petitioner has got no other alternate efficacious remedy
except for the present Public Interest Petition (PIL).
(iii) That the petitioner has not filed any other PIL or any other
such petition seeking the identical relief before any other High Court
or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
13.GROUNDS
That the Public Interest Litigation is being filed inter alia on
following grounds:-
(i) Because the murder and suicide is the violation of fundamental
rights conferred under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and
murder and suicide is more serious offence than adultery which occurs
due to the gender biased provision of the section 497 of the IPC.
(ii) Because depriving wife from prosecuting husband and lodging
complaint against unlawful partner of her husband for bond,is
violation of equality before law under Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution and violation of right to equality under Article 15(1) of
the Indian Constitution.
(iii) Because adultery committed by one’s husband leads to mental
trauma suffered by his wife and child which is violation of Article 21
of the Indian Constitution.
14.PRAYER:
In view of the above facts and circumstances, It is most respectfully
prayed that the Honb’le High Court may issue appropriate writ for
the following amendments in the section 497 of the IPC:-
(i) The wife should have the right to prosecute her husband in case of
illicit relationship committed by him with another woman not being his
wife.
(ii) In case of adultery committed by one’s wife,that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond,as she can’t be punishable as abettor
under section 497 of the IPC.
(iii) In case of illicit relationship committed by another woman with
one’s husband, that another woman should undergo remedial action and
bond.
(iv) Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of 18,should
be kept under the definition of adultery in order to take remedial
action and furnish bond against her.
(v) Such other reliefs be provided as this Honb’le Court may deem fit
and proper in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of Public Interest Litigation:
Rahul Kumar
………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law and Justice
………..Respondent
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER
I,Rahul Kumar S/O-Jagannath Ray Resident Of Vill & Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan,Distt-Samastipur,State-Bihar,PIN-848207, do hereby
solemnly affirm and
declare as under: -
1.That I am the petitioner in the present Public Interest Litigation
2.That I have gone through the Supreme Court (Public Interest
Litigation) Guidelines, 1988 and subsequent modifications and
Do hereby affirm that the present Public Interest Litigation is in
conformity thereof.
3.That I have done whatsoever inquiry/investigation which was in
My power to do, to collect all data/material which was available
And which was relevant for this Court to entertain the present
petition. I further confirm that I have not concealed in the
present petition any data/material/information which may have
enabled this Court to form an opinion whether to entertain this
petition or not and/or whether to grant and relief or not.
4.That the contents of this petition are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
D E P O N E NT
मैँ इस धारा मेँ उक्त संशोधन के लिए पटना उच्च न्यायालय मेँ जनहित याचिका दायर कर रहा हूँ।इस याचिका मेँ ये भी मांग की जा रही है कि ऐसे पति को सजा देने के साथ साथ उस दूसरी महिला के विरुध्द बांड बनाया जाए और उसके विरुध्द Remedial Action लिया जाए।चूँकि धारा 497 के तहत दूसरे पुरुष के सिवाय Adultery करने वाली पत्नी को सजा नहीँ दिया जा सकता,इसलिए इनके विरुध्द भी बांड बनाने और Remedial action लेने का मांग किया गया है।
18 वर्ष से ज्यादा उम्र की महिला जो किसी दूसरे के पति के साथ संबंध बनाती है, चाहे विवाहित हो या अविवाहित,सभी को Adultery की परिभाषा मेँ रखने की मांग की गई है।
यदि पत्नी के पास पति के विरुध्द मुकदमा करने और उस दूसरी महिला के विरुध्द बांड बनाने के लिए शिकायत करने का अधिकार होता तो नाजायज संबंध के कारण की गई कई सारी हत्या और आत्महत्या रुक सकती थी।गीतिका शर्मा-गोपाल कांडा मामला,मधुमिता शुक्ला-अमरमनी त्रिपाठी मामला,शेहला मसूद-जाहिदा परवेज-धुव्रनारायण सिंह मामला और भंवरी देवी-महिपाल मदेरणा मामला का केस स्टडी करके ये बताने का कोशिश किया गया है कि यदि इन मामलोँ मेँ नाजायज संबंध बनाने वाले पुरुषोँ के पत्नियोँ को मुकदमा करने का अधिकार मिलता तो घटित हत्या और आत्महत्या रुक सकती थी।
धारा 494 और 495 का उदाहरण देकर क्रमश: ये बताने की कोशिश की गई है कि जब पति या पत्नी के रहते कोई दूसरा शादी करता है या जब दूसरी शादी करते वक्त पहली शादी वाली बात को छिपाया जाता है तो ऐसा करने वाले पति हो या पत्नी,दोनोँ के लिए बराबर सजा है,फिर Adultery के लिए पति के विरुध्द सजा क्योँ नहीँ है?
आप सभी मित्रोँ का जनसमर्थन और आर्थिक सहयोग अपेक्षित है।
जनहित याचिका नीचे प्रस्तुत है-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of Public Interest Litigation:
Rahul Kumar
………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law and Justice
.… … Respondent
INDEX
Subject-Public Interest Litigation
S.No Particulars Page No.
1. PIL Under Article 226 with Affidavit 1-11
2. Vakalatnama on the behalf of petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of
Public Interest Litigation
Under Article 226
Of the Indian Constitution
And in the matter of
Rahul Kumar S/O- Jagannath Ray Resident Of Vill & Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan, Distt-Samastipur,State-Bihar,PIN-848207
……………………...………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law and Justice
At-Shastri Bhawan,A-Wing, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,New
Delhi,110001
……………………………… … Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of Public Interest Litigation:
Rahul Kumar
………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary,Ministry Of Law and Justice
.… … Respondent
A Public Interest Litigation Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution
for the following amendments in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code,1860:-
1.The wife should have the right to prosecute her husband in case of
illicit relationship committed by him with another woman not being his
wife.
2.In case of adultery committed by one’s wife, that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond, as she can’t be punishable as
abettor under section 497 of the IPC.
3.In case of illicit relationship committed by another woman with
one’s husband, that another woman should undergo remedial action and
bond.
4.Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of 18,should be
kept under the definition of adultery in order to take remedial action
and furnish bond against her.
To
THE HONB’LE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND
HER COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HONB’LE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
PATNA
The Humble Petition on behalf of
the Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
1.That the writ petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation
and that the Petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any
other person/ institution/ body and there is no motive other than of
public interest in filing the writ petition.
ABOUT THE PETITIONER:-
2.That the petitioner is a student of Economics Honours keeping
Keen interest in judicial reforms. The petitioner is not filing
writ petition
Under any registered society rather being self motivated.
3.That the writ petitioner is seeking following amendments in the
section 497 of the IPC:-
(i) The wife should have the right to prosecute her husband in case of
illicit relationship committed by him with another woman not being his
wife.
(ii) In case of adultery committed by one’s wife, that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond, as she can’t be punishable as
abettor under section 497 of the IPC.
(iii) In case of illicit relationship committed by another woman with
one’s husband, that another woman should undergo remedial action and
bond.
(iv) Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of 18,
should be kept under the definition of adultery in order to take
remedial action and furnish bond against her.
4.That the section 497 of the IPC is biased against women and against
the dignity,fundamental rights and human rights conferred to women
being a citizen of India.
As the section 497 of the IPC provides:-
“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 not be punishable as an
abettor.”
5.That after the plain reading of the text of section 497,it is
evident that only another man who commits illicit relationship with
one’s wife can be punished.
The man who commits illicit relationship with another woman not being
his wife can’t be punished. This provision is gender biased because if
the illicit relationship is committed without the consent of one’s
husband, then the unlawful partner of such wife can be punished but if
illicit relationship is committed without the consent of wife by her
husband, then he can’t be punished. In one case, male can be punished
if he commits illicit relationship with one ’s wife but in another
case when he commits illicit relationship with another woman against
the will of his wife, then he can’t be punished. It is totally gender
biased.
6.That In case of adultery committed by one’s wife, that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond, as she can’t be punishable as
abettor under section 497 of the IPC. Similarly, In case of illicit
relationship committed by another woman with one’s husband, that
another woman should undergo remedial action and bond. Remedial action
stands for treatment in terms of her counselling and sending her such
place which can help her to reduce her such unlawful feelings and
change her psychological condition. Bond shall be furnished in order
to warn and stop her to not do such further by making her legally
bound to not do so.
7. That Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of
18,should be kept under the definition of adultery in order to take
remedial action and furnish bond against her.
8.That sections 494 and 495 of the IPC are not gender biased as these
sections provide equal punishment for both wife and husband for the
offence described under these sections but the section 497 says
nothing against the adultery committed by one’s husband against his
wife.
Section 494 Provides:-
“494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.-- Whoever,
having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such
marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such
husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine. Exception.- This section does not extend to any
person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void
by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts
a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such
husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have
been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years,
and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within
that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage
shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom
such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the
same are within his or her knowledge.”
Section 495 Provides:-
“495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person
with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.-- Whoever commits the
offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from
the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact
of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
9. That Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife and Same
offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom
subsequent marriage is contracted is punishable for both husband and
wife,then why only the wife and her unlawful partner will be observed
as guilty in case of adultery when the same offence is also committed
by husband and his unlawful partner.
10. Case Study of Some Highlighted News Related To Adultery
(i) Shehla Masood – Zahida Pervez- Dhruv Narayan Singh sex scandal (2011)
Dhruv Narayan Singh, BJP MLA of Madhya Pradesh, was accused of having
illicit relationship with many women and it resulted in the muder of
one her lovers, Shehla Masood, an RTI activist, who was got eliminated
through contract killers hired by Dhruv’s another lover Zahida
Pervez.
(ii) Gopal Kanda & Geetika Sharma scandal (2012)
The story of Gopal Kanda, a former Haryana minister, was a typical
rags-to-riches story before destiny pulled the rug from under his feet
and he was incarcerated for abetting the suicide of Geetika Sharma, a
former air-hostess of now-defunct MDLR airlines owned by Kanda.
Geetika Sharma committed suicide by hanging herself on August 5, 2012
and left behind a suicide note accusing Gopal Kanda of deliberately
harassing her and leaving her with no option than to end her life.
Police investigation revealed that Gopal Kanda targeted Geetika from
the day one of her joining the MDLR airlines. Gopal Kanda made it
mandatory for Geetika to meet him every evening. It is said that
Geetika had illicit relationship with Kanda and she underwent abortion
a few times.
MDLR was shut down in 2009 and in October 2010 it became a part of
Emirates Airlines. Geetika moved over to Dubai to join Emirates
Airlines but Gopal Kanda sent a letter to Emirates saying that she had
been a poor employee and had defaulted on a loan. Kanda wanted her to
quit her job and return to India.
Gopal Kanda, on the hand, denied all the allegations and said that he
always tried to help Geetika Sharma and even financed her MBA course.
Not only this, he made her the chairperson of the trust that ran an
international school at Sirsa.
Police investigations revealed that on August 3, a day before Geetika
committed suicide, Kanda's advocate pressurized her over phone to sign
on a petition filed in Goa to quash the FIR lodged against another
MDLR employee, Ankita Singh.
It was same Ankita Singh who was mentioned by Geetika in her suicide
note. Geetika had alleged that Kanda had illicit relationship with
Ankita and that Kanda had fathered a child with Ankita.
It is said that Geetika was jealous of Ankita and she had even fought
with Ankita warning her to keep a distance from Kanda. Kanda was a
typical philanderer and a frustrated Geetika committed suicide.
Gopal Kanda was arrested on August 18 for abetting the suicide of
Geetika and is still languishing in the jail.
(iii) Mahipal Maderna – Bhanwari Devi Scandal (2011):
Bhanwari Devi, a 36 year old auxiliary nurse and midwife, from
Rajasthan came into the limelight after her husband alleged that
Mahipal Maderna, the Congress minister in state government, got his
wife abducted.
The investigation of the case revealed that Bhanwari Devi was
blackmailing Maderna and Congress legislator Malkhan Singh and
demanded crores of rupees based on a CD in which Maderna and others
were seen in a compromising position with Bhanwari Devi.
Maderna and Malkhan finally decided to get her eliminated with the
help of supari killers. Maderna is under custody and court has framed
charges against him.
(iv) Amarmani Tripathi –Madhumita Shukla scandal (2003):
Madhumita Shukla, a 24-year old poetess , was gunned down by two
assailants in her apartment in Lucknow on April 9, 2003. Madhumita was
seven months pregnant at the time of murder.
Police investigation revealed that Madhumita was a lover of Amarmani
Tripathi, a minister in UP government.
The investigation further revealed that Madhumita was killed at the
instructions of Madhumani Tripathi , the wife of Amarmani Tripathi,
who got furious after she came to know of Madhumita’s affair with her
husband.
Both Amarmani Tripathi and his wife Madhumani were arrested and
sentenced to life imprisonment.
11. Conclusion On the Case Study of Some Highlighted News Related To Adultery
That the burning question is, whether the murder of Shehla Masood,
Bhanwari Devi and Madhumita Shukla could have been prevented and
whether the suicide of Geetika Sharma Could have been prevented if the
wife of those whose husbands were involved in illicit relationship
with above women would have the right to prosecute her husband and
lodge complaint against these above another women by the wife of these
husbands in order to furnish bond of these another women.
Shehla Masood was murdered by Zahida Pervez because she was also one
lover of Dhruv Narayan Singh.If the wife of Dhruv Narayan Singh would
have the right to prosecute her husband and lodge complaint against
Shehla Masood,Zahida Pervez etc,then the both women would have to
furnish bond and leave the relationship with Dhruv Narayan Singh and
Dhruv Narayan Singh would have to undergo imprisonment and thus
nothing like murder would occur due to such illicit relationship.
Bhanwari Devi was murdered by Mahipal Maderna because he was
blackmailed by her.If the wife of Mahipal Maderna would have the
right to prosecute her husband and lodge complaint against Bhanwari
Devi,then Bhanwari Devi would have to furnish bond and leave the
relationship with Mahipal Maderna and Mahipal Maderna would have to
undergo imprisonment and further there would be no blackmailing
committed by Bhanwari Devi and thus nothing like murder would occur
due to such illicit relationship.
Mudhumita Shukla was murdered by Amarmani Tripathi and his wife
Madhumani Tripathi because Madhumani Tripathi got frustrated and
forced her husband to remove Madhumita from her way.If the wife of
Amarmani Tripathi would have the right to prosecute her husband and
lodge complaint against Madhumita Shukla,then Madhumita Shukla would
have to furnish bond and leave the relationship with Amarmani Tripathi
and Amarmani Tripathi would have to undergo imprisonment and further
there would be frustration in the mind of Madhumani Tripathi and thus
nothing like murder would occur due to such illicit relationship.
Geetika Sharma committed suicide because she was tortured and
blackmailed by Gopal Kanda and she had jealousy with Ankita Singh.If
the wife of Gopal Kanda would have the right to prosecute her
husband and lodge complaint against Geetika Sharma,Ankita Singh
etc,then Geetika Sharma,Ankita Singh etc would have to furnish
bond and leave the illicit relationship with Gopal Kanda and Gopal
Kanda would have to undergo imprisonment and further there would be
no blackmailing and torturing committed against Geetika Sharma and
jealousy within her and thus nothing like suicide would occur due to
such illicit relationship.
12.AVERMENTS:
(i) That the petitioner is the citizen of India.
(ii) That the Petitioner has got no other alternate efficacious remedy
except for the present Public Interest Petition (PIL).
(iii) That the petitioner has not filed any other PIL or any other
such petition seeking the identical relief before any other High Court
or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
13.GROUNDS
That the Public Interest Litigation is being filed inter alia on
following grounds:-
(i) Because the murder and suicide is the violation of fundamental
rights conferred under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and
murder and suicide is more serious offence than adultery which occurs
due to the gender biased provision of the section 497 of the IPC.
(ii) Because depriving wife from prosecuting husband and lodging
complaint against unlawful partner of her husband for bond,is
violation of equality before law under Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution and violation of right to equality under Article 15(1) of
the Indian Constitution.
(iii) Because adultery committed by one’s husband leads to mental
trauma suffered by his wife and child which is violation of Article 21
of the Indian Constitution.
14.PRAYER:
In view of the above facts and circumstances, It is most respectfully
prayed that the Honb’le High Court may issue appropriate writ for
the following amendments in the section 497 of the IPC:-
(i) The wife should have the right to prosecute her husband in case of
illicit relationship committed by him with another woman not being his
wife.
(ii) In case of adultery committed by one’s wife,that wife should
undergo remedial action and bond,as she can’t be punishable as abettor
under section 497 of the IPC.
(iii) In case of illicit relationship committed by another woman with
one’s husband, that another woman should undergo remedial action and
bond.
(iv) Any woman whether married or unmarried above the age of 18,should
be kept under the definition of adultery in order to take remedial
action and furnish bond against her.
(v) Such other reliefs be provided as this Honb’le Court may deem fit
and proper in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Public Interest Litigation)
CWJC NO. OF 2014
In The Matter Of Public Interest Litigation:
Rahul Kumar
………… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law and Justice
………..Respondent
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER
I,Rahul Kumar S/O-Jagannath Ray Resident Of Vill & Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan,Distt-Samastipur,State-Bihar,PIN-848207, do hereby
solemnly affirm and
declare as under: -
1.That I am the petitioner in the present Public Interest Litigation
2.That I have gone through the Supreme Court (Public Interest
Litigation) Guidelines, 1988 and subsequent modifications and
Do hereby affirm that the present Public Interest Litigation is in
conformity thereof.
3.That I have done whatsoever inquiry/investigation which was in
My power to do, to collect all data/material which was available
And which was relevant for this Court to entertain the present
petition. I further confirm that I have not concealed in the
present petition any data/material/information which may have
enabled this Court to form an opinion whether to entertain this
petition or not and/or whether to grant and relief or not.
4.That the contents of this petition are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
D E P O N E NT
Jagannath Jaggu and 2 others like this.
Jagannath Jaggu
best wishes rahul jee. i wish you to be the winner
best wishes rahul jee. i wish you to be the winner
Rahul Kumar
thanks jagannath ji
thanks jagannath ji
Comments