Shock to husband from High Court, relief to wife, know the shocking case

Jodhpur: When two adults have consensual sex outside marriage, it is not a legal offence. The Rajasthan High Court, while dismissing a petition filed by a husband, said that adultery was an exception under Section 497 of the IPC, which has already been struck down. Justice Birendra Kumar said that a case under IPC Section 494 (bigamy) was not made out as neither of the two had married for the second time during the lifetime of either spouse. Unless marriage is proven, a marriage-like relationship, such as a live-in relationship, does not fall under Section 494. The bench said, ‘Brief background is that the applicant filed the case alleging that his wife was kidnapped by the accused. His wife appeared in the court with an affidavit where she said that no one had kidnapped her, but she was in a live-in relationship with the accused Sanjeev of her own free will. This court found that no offense under section 366 of the IPC was committed and the FIR is quashed. During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that the woman had admitted that she was having an extramarital affair with Sanjeev, hence it constitutes an offense under sections 494 and 497 of the IPC. The lawyer appealed to the court to exercise jurisdiction to protect social morality. Citing a Supreme Court order, the single bench said, ‘It is true that the mainstream view in our society is that physical relations should be only between a married couple, but when two adults have consensual relations outside marriage. This is not a crime. The Court held that consensual sexual intercourse between two adults of the opposite sex (with the exception of adultery) is not a crime. However, this is considered unethical. The court said, ‘An adult woman can marry whomever she wants and live with whomever she wants.’ The bench said, ‘The wife of the applicant has filed a reply jointly with one of the accused persons stating that she left the house of her own free will and is in a relationship with Sanjeev.’ The petitioner had requested to withdraw the order of cancellation of FIR.