‘The woman considered her husband’s property …’: With Draupadi warning, Delhi HC refused to take action on the man’s adultery petition against his wife’s lover

New Delhi: Delhi High Court has discharged a person Case of adultery Filed by a woman’s husband, he was allegedly making a round, seeing that a woman behaving as a property of a man is a deep flawed perception, which is in the dates of the Mahabharata.
Justice Nina Bansal Krishna, who pronounced the verdict on 17 April, referred to the epic to highlight the epic Patriarchal roots Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now among the now-the-class adultery law. “The woman was considered as a husband’s property and its devastating results are well documented in the Mahabharata, in which Draupadi was at stake in gambling game for anyone other than her husband Yudhishish, where the other four brothers were silent spectators and Draupadi had no voice to protest her gazi.”
The court underlines the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict, which reduced the adultery, announced Section 497 IPC Unconstitutional to treat a woman as a passive victim without an agency. Justice Krishna said that Justice said, “The woman involved in an adulterated relationship was not punished, a” victim who was seduced “was considered, not a disgusting or criminal, a” outpost argument “.
“As it happened, she was lost in Gamble’s game and was followed by a great war of Mahabharata, which was a pioneer for the massive loss of life and was erasing many of many of the family members. Despite the example, despite such examples that a chattail as a chattail to display the result of a woman’s treatment as a chattail, was misrepresented as the wrong mentality of our society, when the court said that the court said that the court said that the court said that the court said that the court was said to couple.”
In the current case, the husband accused his wife and the petitioner of making a round and traveling to another city, where he allegedly stayed in a hotel and had sex without their consent.
While a magisterial court had earlier discharged the person, the session court reversed the verdict and issued summons. However, the High Court dismissed the complaint, stating that the original components of the canceled section 497 were not excluded.
Quoting the apex court, the bench said, “When a party in a marital relationship loses moral commitment, it is a matter of complete privacy. It would be a regressive step to think about adultery from the point of criminality.”
Sangering the chronic perception of marital ownership over women, the judge noticed that this provision was never about preserving the purity of marriage, but was about maintaining the control of the husband.
“This is clear, therefore, this is that this ancient law has underlined its objective for a long time and does not class with today’s constitutional morality, on which it was made a lot of items, since it has appeared that it has already lost his argument and has been formed in today’s day and age, it is completely irrational,” The court said, because this was said.