Readers’ Voice
Reformation of Section – 497
Israt Jahan Sadia
What should be the purpose of a Penal Code in a country? It’s definitely to decrease the crime rate and control the society for developing a better lifestyle.
After the adaptation of the Penal Code, 1860 in Bangladesh the crime rate was not decreased.
Besides, making other laws cannot bring any noticeable change in our society. Hope that the reformation of the penal code may bring any change.
Anyone who engages in sexual activity with a woman whom he knows or has reason to suspect to be another man’s wife without that man’s knowledge or consent is guilty of adultery.
This is not the same as rape, and the punishment for adultery is either a fine or a term of imprisonment of up to five years or can be both. In this situation, the wife won’t face consequences for aiding and abetting.
Sexual relations between a married person and another individual who is not the legal spouse is known as adultery.
A consenting physical relationship between two people who have not been wed is considered adultery under the law.
Infidelity, sometimes referred to as adultery or extramarital affairs, is a moral offense that is condemned by nearly all world faiths as a sin.
The main ingredients of this section are:
• There must be sexual intercourse between a married woman and another man, who is not her legal husband.
• Sexual intercourse should take place by the woman’s consent, and must be against the woman’s legal husband’s knowledge.
• The man who will commit the adultery only be the offender under this section but the woman will not be considered as an offender.
• If we notice the article 27 and 32 of the constitution of Bangladesh respectively (Equality before law) and (Protection of right to life and personal liberty) then this section holds a conflicting position. Because women who face discrimination and lack personal liberty, are not guaranteed the right to sue under section 497 when their husband committed adultery.
So the right should be ensured:
• A woman is not acknowledged as a victim or an offender. In other words, it rejects women’s legal identity. It also gives the woman an extra advantage over the man where they both committed the offense.
• Again the husband is unable to bring legal action against his adulterous wife where the relationship of marriage is based on faith, trust and loyalty. Therefore, women should be indicated as a perpetrator for the breach of the trust.
• The wife of an adulterer is unable to sue her husband or an adulterous, only a man may bring suit against another male (adulterer). The wife is acknowledged as the husband’s or man’s property. As a result, adultery can’t be used as a ground for divorce.
• Another discriminatory judgment was given in the Nurul Huq Bahadur vs. Bibi Sakina and other case. Where the court declared that adultery with widows, prostitutes, or single women can’t be counted as adultery which is surely unjustified for the female and can increase adultery against them.
• It seems that only two people are involved in this crime. But actually it affected the other partner of these offenders and their children as well as their family and reputation. For this the offense should be taken more seriously and the punishment need to extend up to 14 years imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.
• The Islamic nations that follow the law, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, and Yemen, have strong laws against adultery, also known as “Zina” and they set the death sentence as the worst penalty for adultery.
• Nonetheless, adultery is still prohibited in 21 states in the United States. Most states, including New York, only classify adultery on your spouse as a misdemeanor. However, among other places, Idaho, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin consider it a criminal offense that carries a jail sentence.
• Adultery is a reason for dissolution in the UK but is not a crime.
• In India: The Indian Supreme Court declared the section 497 of the Indian Penal Code that defined adultery to be unconstitutional and eliminated it. In Joseph Shinwhen v. Union of India, the party who filed the petition argued that the adultery statute discriminated against the equality basic right protected by Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. He argued that there is discrimination in the law.
