I was agitated watching a Marathi soap opera that depicted a scene where a couple living out of wedlock was told there would be legal consequances. The man was told he can face jail time for adultery. ‘What nonsense’ I said, ‘these people should not show such blatantly untrue things’. I have had such bouts of frustration watching medical details portrayed eroneously as well. It has detrimental effect on societal understanding of medical and legal facts.
Before I started writing a scathing critique I decided to check the penal code related to marriage. Lo and behold, the soap opera writers are more knowledgeable about legalities than I thought I was:
Section-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.”
Wow! how did I not know this? Note that it is about a man’s wife being ‘stolen’. It does not matter if a married man is stolen by another. I just assumed that we live in the 21st century and women are not considered a man’s possession anymore. I suddenly feel extremely uncomfortable being married under the marriage act in India. I wasn’t aware what I was signing up for.
The term adultery itself is a remnant of the patriarchical understanding of ‘Pavitrya’ (purity) of the woman that is necessary for the man to establish his genetic lineage. Woman’s womb being the ‘Kshetra’ (literally, the field) that needs to remain unadulterated and untouched by any other man.
Section-498- Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman “Whoever takes or entices any woman who is and whom he knows or has reasons to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.
Taking a woman from her husband or from a ‘person having the care of her’ – This reads as if women are children who need a guardian at all times. ‘Enticing’ similarly makes women sound like naive juvenile beings without any agency or understanding of their own sexuality.
A little bit of digging shows that the law is contested couple of times without much success. However, I haven’t seen any information about a sustained movement to change these archaic laws. Time to find a women’s rights group that is working on it and see how I can support it.
devayani tirthali 