'Live-in acceptable, why not adultery?'

Yes, section 497 need a fresh look as it is a blot on the statue and many have been harping on this ; but RCR need not.

Assumi ji sir, Yes, even we are not able to accept it. But this is how women are generally treated. That is whay you hear such word like Obedience and disobedience from wives....or even when people are in marital relationship they will say "we are maintaining our wives" or yesterdsay you would have read about this revealing dress news clipping. 

Now do you know in Delhi it is the expereince of many North Eastern girls including of Naga gilrs who are mostly students that they are harassed and called dirty names because what and how they wear hits the patriarchal mind set very very badly. If you wish I will send the trascriptts of my talk with these female students who feel alienated in a land of theirs i.e, India....because what they do not consider and we do not  consider revealing, the mainstream , so called mainstream of men and boys, consider revealing...! 

Agree with Meenal's reply to Assumi ji.

Yes, Chandalika, I am  very much aware of that and appreciate your views. if you go to the thread revealing dress as a ground of divorce, you will find my respond to that.

Ms. Roshni,

1. If you are a married man/woman,and your partner leaves you,starts live in with sum1,will you be happy that he/s she is enjoying his/her constitutional rights?

 I cannot swear by God because I believe it is just a cliche'. My concept about God does not subscribe to your demand. But I digress from the topic.

No. I will nothe happy to let her go and enjoy her rights. On the contrary I will be very sad. But if she does that that would be only because she has ceased to love me and if that is so, there is no point in tying her down on the slender legal thread of marriage. Should such  a thing happen, that would be the end of our marriage because she has taken to love another man. Existence of Sec. 497 will not prevent such a thing happening because law does not govern emotions and the law can only take revenge after the event. Dont' read too much into this statement of mine and ask me will it apply to murders also. I am all for deterrent punishment for crimes but to punish love is cruel. All I am saying  is that Having s*x with the  person you love should not be crime under law.

2. why do you think marriage treats partner as a property?wot makes you think so?

I did not say that all husbands treat wives as property. Read my post again. All I stated is that as per 497, s*x outside marriage is crime only if it is without permission of the husband. Tell me what this imply. To me, the simple meaning is that husband's permission is the critical factor in deciding whether extra-marital s*x is a crime or not. Why  is such an abhorrent provision existing in the law under a Constitution guaranteeing gender equality? The very insinuation that husband can 'permit' or refuse permit the wife to have s*x with another man makes one wonder whether law itself treats wife as property of husband just as renting / leasing property. It is not my opinion but one the law itself insinuates.

isn't it a way to get a life long companion?

Certainly not. It is love and mutual trust that defines marriage and long term relationships. Once that is lost, no law can save a marriage - revenge or no revenge. So what is the poiint in penal provisions for change of preferences?

or is it only to fulfill s*xual lusts,for which they need to have different people,for enjoyment..

if your answer is yes,you'll be comfortable that ur partner is fulfilling his lusts wid sum1 else,in which he has ur full support??

Dear Madam, we are discussing law points not sociology. Sanctity of marriage and need for legal framework for marriage are vast subjects of sociology and differ from society to society even within India with Sec. 497. So let us stick to the legal point being debated.  Ah, NO. I will not be comfortable with my partner seeking fulfilment of lust with someone else. It is not a question of my comfort / happiness only - it involves my Partners comfort / happiness also. Your questionnaire totally ignores that aspect.

3. shud there be a dividing line b/w rights and moral duties? or anything is fair,as far as fulfilling lust is concerned?

Morality is  highly subjective. Rights are universal. There can be restrictions on individual rights to ensure social cohesion / survival but not total denial of rights. Dissolution of marriage is the price the errant partner pays for extra-marital s*x and anything more than that would be total denial of rights. 

4. if rights are the only main consideration,wot abt banning marriages altogether?then the right to live can be practised better,as no one will be committed to the other person?so no complications arising,had the person been married...wot do u say?

No. Rights are important but marriage has more to it than mere rights. Love and trust for example. Inheritance of  property for example. Upbringing of children and their rights. That is why getting divorce is not easy because the society has to ensure that marrige is not broken up on flimsy grounds or temporary estrangement between the couple. Simply because I am against penalising extra-marital s*x it does not mean that I am against marriage itself. On the contrary, I am all for institution of marriage. My only plea is that once the bond between the couple is broken permanently, there is no point in law punishing the first person or third person (second being the woman involved who doesn't get punished in any case).

5. if rights and only rights are everything,children shud leave their parents in old age homes and live independently,because they have the ."right to live"..

You digress from the topic and reads too much into a simple demand for scrapping 497. I have already explained my views on these matters. In any case, if the children choose to put their parents in old age homes, there is nothing the parents can do. If the children refuses to support their parents, then there may be legal remedy - a necessary legal provision to protect the rights of parents and a reasonable restriction on the rights of children. Mind you it is very unlike the provisions of 497.

6) a person wortking in a company owned by you shud take leaves,as and when he pleases without ur permission,because he has the right to enjoy his personal life.asking you repeatedly means he's being ur slave...wot do u say?

 The analogy is not correct.  A husband wife relationship is not like employer employee relatinship. This entire questiionnnare springs from such a misunderstanding. Spouse is not an employee - he / she is partner in life. A partner does not own the other - both own the marriage together. Once the partners lose their affinity to each other, the partnership cannot survive and there is no point in punishing the new 'company' my earlier partner forms with someone else.

As to you question about employee in my company taking leave to enjoy his right to personal life, I will not object so long as it does not affect his performance. I allow him leave every year for that and compensate him with salary for the time he works for the company. He / she is not my slave - he has the right to leave the job and I have the right to fire him (albeit restricted rights).

7) parents who give birth to a child shud throw him out,if he gets handicapped,because they have the right to live peacefully,minus any pressures to care for a handicapped kid 4ever

You are going wild with unrelated questions. What has this to do with the legal question about adultry? Child support is different legal question governed by separate laws and separate reasoning.

8.)going by your statements,your parents were each others' properties,your grandparents and greatparents as well.....there was no companionship.....wot do u say?

I have already explained my views about marriage and companionship. You  are misreading the whole thread. It is not me who says wife is property of husband. My views are exactly the opposite. My allegation is that Section 497 leads to such an implication by its very wording. I criticise the law treating wives as property and you respond as if I had made the allegation. For your information, I objected to such an insinuation in Sect 497.

9) lastly,if you have a daughter/son/brother/sister whose spouse starts a live in relation wid sum1,you will be v.happy that he's enjoying his rights and you will actually go and bless the couple,and also decorate their suhaag sej happily...after all you are helpng them enjoy their rights.....WILL YOU?

My happiness or otherwise is irrelevant in such a situation. If my children choses to start live in relations despite knowing that I may not approve it, I may not be able to prevent it. I would certainly try to convince him / her to consider marriage atleast for the sake of children likely to be born. I am all of strong institution of marriage. All I am objecting to is the obnoxious provision that has nothing to do with sanctity of marriage and is based on principles of revenge to be visited upon someone encroaching. It is that law that insinuates wives as property, not me. I am demanding withdrawal of such a provision in the statute.

I am not advocating free-for-all s*xual relations. I am only demanding that if a spouse chooses to live with another, ther  is no point in penalising them. Their marriage is no longer based on love and trust and forcefully binding them is counterproductive - even for their children.

For that matter not only one section of Procedure code but Complete indian Legal system need overhauling and should be made more Transparent and more accountable, To which the Law makers (Parliamentarians and Lawyers) would not accept as their is hidden agenda in each and every Section of Constitution  the benefit of which is being enjoyed by these class of the society since Independence at the cost of Tax payers?

" who are biting arup "

ARUP ENJOYING - NO PROBLEM MR KALARA.

'AM THINKING WHEN I WILL READ ALL TSESE POSTINGS AND ANSWER ONE AFTER ONE.

TIME SHORT.

@ MS UMA,

PLEASE CLEAR THE MATTER.

SORRY THE BELLOW  POSTING IS FOR ANOTHER THREAD.

" who are biting arup "

ARUP ENJOYING - NO PROBLEM MR KALARA.

'AM THINKING WHEN I WILL READ ALL TSESE POSTINGS AND ANSWER ONE AFTER ONE.

TIME SHORT.

For that matter not only one section of Procedure code but Complete indian Legal system need overhauling and should be made more Transparent and more accountable, To which the Law makers (Parliamentarians and Lawyers) would not accept as their is hidden agenda in each and every Section of Constitution  the benefit of which is being enjoyed by these class of the society since Independence at the cost of Tax payers?

Mr. Mahesh, I fully agree with you. I focussed on 497 because that was the subject of this thread. The entire system need overhauling.

It is not that the Government is unaware of this. A few years back it had constituted a committee to simplify legal procedures. As the committee sought suggestions from general public, I had submitted a few suggestions. Nothing was heard of the Committee.

What to talk of a special committee. The Law Commission submits report every year with suggestions for changes in law. Nothing happens. Not only Lawyers, Politicians and Bureaucracy have vested interest in retaining the current opaque, delay-ridden system.

@ Above

Only 1 sentence I shall add,in connection with your conversation with Roshni.

You say that if a person has s*x outside marriage,love has ceased to exist,and that law should not act as moral police.

Fine..

Should I add that there are men and women,who  like to have fun outside marriage,even if they have happy marriages.

For some men,marriage is mainly to have children,to please thier own parents, and to get a full time maid.

So why should law not be brought into picture,when a partner cheats?

When the same law is invoked to ensure that old parents are maintained by callous children?

You may disagree,but LAW IS REQUIRED all such cases.If not,people will start walking over their partners even more than they do so now,in this kalyuga

Thosse who say law is not required are spoiled,selfish and proud type of people,who look for opportunities to change partners like a dress.

Either we Indians were morally very upright people,who had a lot of self control.Then law was not required.

One more thing.

You equate s*x with love.

Therefore you say that when partner has extramarital affairs,he has ceased to love.

Sir,the period of romance in a couple's life is usually upto 4-45 yrs(depends upon their libidos)

After that,the relationships is mainly one of committment,friendship,faith,and so on.

If we cannot have such qualities,because we are blinded by the lust of s*x,we are doomed.We cannot have any stable relationship,despite changing many partners.

Would a partner not like to lead his life with a person who has above qualities,or only the one who has a high libido,but is hollow from inside?

People like Mahatama Gandhi,Buddha,Rama,etc. were without their partners for many years or took sanyas.So did they their marriages fail?Or did they have affiars outside?

My personal feelings are -

1. Every individual should have the personal liberty to decide - with whom  he / she will do s*x. It comes under personal liberty under art 21 of The constituion of india. No marriage or live in relationship should not be a bar for it.

2. Consent on s*x may be in writting for both the parties, to avoid feature problem. Consent of the perties are in core point of   eastablishing a relationship.

3. People should take s*x education on the subject, (i) s*x in science (ii) s*x in modern society.

4. There is nothing like adultry. To save the marriage, adultry was introduced in europe and we got it through British empire.Though adultry is crime under ipc, but in future it will be rectified and removed from the list of criminal offences. In Indian culture there was nothing like adultry. Is it not?

5. Live in is the oldest form and marriage is a new concept.

6. Once marriage dominated females under the influence of   male chauvinism and now a days marriage dominated males under the infuence of female chauvinism.

If right to have s*x with anyone is so important,DON'T get married AT ALL...

Having s*x outside marriage will hurt the partner's feelings..

Getting partner's consent to have s*x outside marriage will devastate him,if you ask for it..

Remain a bachelor/spinster,if you cannot commit to 1 person

SIMPLE............THAT'S IT

i am not talking about 'marriage', marriage will left out from the society very soon.

modern - science, political and social development, commerce - ruining the institution of marriage. female chauvinism act as an catalyst to destroy the marriage.