urbestfriend Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Strange law indeed! I don't understand on what basis man is punishable for having a consented intercourse with a woman, if she happens to be a wife of someone else? I'd have thought if it amounts to adultery , then both should be punishable as this is consented sex and she has also erred by committing adultery. In todays age, it is just ridiculous to think only men are seducer, it could be women too especially if they are part of unhappy marriage.
Lurker Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 ^ That's fair IMO. Men are prone to stray' date=' not women. Call it biological wiring or whatever. Even the suspicion that men feel is rooted in their own proclivities for feeling desire for other women.[/quote'] [Rajesh Khanna mode on] Pushpaaa, tum bhi? :headshake: [Rajesh Khann mode off] Part of the problem with such laws, as most Indian laws, is that these have been written well over 100-200 years old. Yes in that era it made sense. It makes little sense today, women and men will both stray if given a chance. One should listen to tharki budhao Khushwant Singh, he has been saying this for 75 years now..Shobha De also agrees. :winky::winky:
ViruRulez Posted March 28, 2012 Author Posted March 28, 2012 DK, even 'denial of sex' is a very contentious issue. It pits the man's word against the woman's. Hypothetical scenario: The guy is some super despo who keeps asking his wife for sex every now and then. And she refuses most of the time. Can he still claim that he's being mentally tortured or subjected to cruelty? And who is actually being subjected to mental cruelty? The time period for considering ( its one factor) a divorce is non consummation in one year of the marriage. Interesting. So, legally it is allowed to not allow sex for a whole year. That sounds weird and extremely long legal provision to be honest. BTW the other law also does not make sense in the present date. If a man and a woman (married or unmarried) has consensual sex and clearly not amounting to rape can get 5 years imprisonment. This itself is contradictory to the idea of a free society and democracy and not sure why court would invade in private lives of anyone and especially give a sentence such as imprisonment when everything is with consent. :blink:
urbestfriend Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Interesting. So, legally it is allowed to not allow sex for a whole year. That sounds weird and extremely long legal provision to be honest. BTW the other law also does not make sense in the present date. If a man and a woman (married or unmarried) has consensual sex and clearly not amounting to rape can get 5 years imprisonment. This itself is contradictory to the idea of a free society and democracy and not sure why court would invade in private lives of anyone and especially give a sentence such as imprisonment when everything is with consent. :blink: It is not that simple especially when it involves sex outside marriage, which amounts to cheating/ breaking the trust of the spouse. Also this law could be a deterrent in order to prevent people from going for adultery for trivial domestic issues which could results in failure of marriages.
Zelig Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 25 saal bina sex ke rah liye' date=' chaar din aur sahi[/quote'] same to you :mama: :aetsch:
ViruRulez Posted March 28, 2012 Author Posted March 28, 2012 It is not that simple especially when it involves sex outside marriage' date=' which amounts to cheating/ breaking the trust of the spouse. Also this law could be a deterrent in order to prevent people from going for adultery for trivial domestic issues which could results in failure of marriages.[/quote'] Just checked the law on wikipedia for other countries. It seems all modern countries have nearly decriminalized it. It also seems to be decriminalized in South American countries. China and Japan also does not criminalize adultery. All countries in Europe have decriminalized it as per wikipedia. In US too, it is somewhat laxed and the law in Maryland imposes a $10 fine which sounds more like a service tax rather than a law. :giggle: It seems we are following the Middle East and Arab countries rather than being a modern secular nation in this aspect. Interesting. I am not for failure of marriages but the law sounds interesting which allows a partner to deny sex to his other partner for upto a year or so but at the same time if the sex starved partner tries to stray then he is again put a second punishment of five years imprisonment. Another couple of gender biased law it seems. :winky:
Tiger80 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Just checked the law on wikipedia for other countries. It seems all modern countries have nearly decriminalized it. It also seems to be decriminalized in South American countries. China and Japan also does not criminalize adultery. All countries in Europe have decriminalized it as per wikipedia. In US too' date=' it is somewhat laxed and the law in Maryland imposes a $10 fine which sounds more like a service tax rather than a law. :giggle: It seems we are following the Middle East and Arab countries rather than being a modern secular nation in this aspect. Interesting. I am not for failure of marriages but the law sounds interesting which allows a partner to deny sex to his other partner for upto a year or so but at the same time if the sex starved partner tries to stray then he is again put a second punishment of five years imprisonment. Another couple of gender biased law it seems. :winky:[/quote'] If a married man had sex with Unmarried woman ,Widow or prostitute then it is not an adultery http://www.tax4india.com/indian-laws/criminal-law/adultry/adultry.html
beetle Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Actually' date=' it's applicable equally both ways. But you are right in saying that it's mostly about men denied sex by a woman. But then, you have to consider another side as well - a sex starved man is legally not allowed to have sex outside the marriage. But a sex starved woman is legally allowed to sleep with other men. So men sort of have a right to whine about denial of sex.[/quote'] It is the other way round Domi. If the husband has sex out side of marriage all that the woman can do is divorce him or bear with him. If the wife has sex out side of marriage ,her husband can not only seek divorce but also cause trouble legally for the man she had sex with.
DomainK Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 It is the other way round Domi. If the husband has sex out side of marriage all that the woman can do is divorce him or bear with him. If the wife has sex out side of marriage ,her husband can not only seek divorce but also cause trouble legally for the man she had sex with. Yes, the adultery can be ground for divorce, but the woman can be punished for the adultery itself as the man can be.
DomainK Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 DK, you've over simplified this bit. Allow me to elaborate. The law states that: 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 offense of rape, is guilty of the offense 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 Lets try and decipher this legal jargon, First off, we have to distinguish between adultery as a reason for divorce and punishment for adultery. The above mentioned paragraph states that Indian law can penalize sexual relationship of a man with a married woman if it is without the consent of her husband. The offense here is on the husband of the adulteress. Thereby, the law implies that if a man is having a sexual relationship with an unmarried woman, or with a married woman after the consent of her husband, or a CSW, or a widow, his wife cannot prosecute him or the adulteress.* It also means that, if a man is having a sexual relationship with a woman with out her husbands consent, the husband can only prosecute the man and not his own wife. (*) However, all these extra marital relationships still fall under the ambit of adultery and can be valid grounds for a divorce. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So , neither a sex starved woman nor a sex starved man are 'allowed' to have an extra marital relationship. Both are classified as adultery. And both can be used against the erring party in a divorce settlement. However, its only the man who is going to punished (upto 5 years of jail and/or a fine) for committing adultery. AFAIK there is more to the law than you have quote or you have missed. From what I remember from a newspaper article I read long ago: 1. If a man sleeps with a woman other than his wife, it's criminal offense and he will be punished for that. 2. It's a crime against the state. The wife of the man need not complain for the state to prosecute and punish. Anyone can inform the police and the police can act on it's own and the court can punish the man even if the wife decides to forgive the husband. 3. If a woman sleeps with a man other than her husband, she has not committed any crime and can not be punished for that. (Though it can be ground for divorce, which is entirely another subject) 4. However, the husband can complain against the man who slept with his wife and he can be prosecuted and punished for the crime.
DomainK Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Interesting. So, legally it is allowed to not allow sex for a whole year. That sounds weird and extremely long legal provision to be honest. BTW the other law also does not make sense in the present date. If a man and a woman (married or unmarried) has consensual sex and clearly not amounting to rape can get 5 years imprisonment. This itself is contradictory to the idea of a free society and democracy and not sure why court would invade in private lives of anyone and especially give a sentence such as imprisonment when everything is with consent. :blink: It's usually upto a judge to decide whether the denial of sex does amount to cruelty and if it was cruel enough to be ground for divorce. In most cases I think a year of denial of sex will be considered too cruel. In India, judges have too much liberty and are advised to deal conservatively in divorce cases. The judges actually become marriage counselors and advise the couples.
Vijay.Sharma Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Could it be that the woman is actually lesbian and hence dunn wanna do it with a man?
Desi Cartman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Its 5th night in himachali culture.:peter: Thank god my family moved out of HP before I was even born :P 5 days lol
Zelig Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Thank god my family moved out of HP before I was even born :P 5 days lol :hmmm: I agree, 4 or 5 days is too longgggg. 2 would do :agree:
Desi Cartman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 :hmmm: I agree, 4 or 5 days is too longgggg. 2 would do :agree: Dont forget that you are a male.. You'll never be too tired for sex :giggity:
Mariyam Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Interesting. So, legally it is allowed to not allow sex for a whole year. That sounds weird and extremely long legal provision to be honest. BTW the other law also does not make sense in the present date. If a man and a woman (married or unmarried) has consensual sex and clearly not amounting to rape can get 5 years imprisonment. This itself is contradictory to the idea of a free society and democracy and not sure why court would invade in private lives of anyone and especially give a sentence such as imprisonment when everything is with consent. :blink: How does that contradict the concept of free society and/or democracy? Suppose you are employed with a company xyz and you sign an agreement with the company which states that you won't work for anyone else as long as you are employed with them. And then, to get some additional experience (pun intended :P ), you start working part time for company abc. If caught, you will be in a spot. You can't then say that you are working there by your free will and company abc knows that you are employed elsewhere, but still doesn't have a problem with you working with them. Free society doesn't mean that you can unilaterally renege on an agreement you make (in this case with your spouse). Marriage between two people is a contractual agreement to follow certain rules. Remember, all marriages are registered and the registration form on which all married people sign (or leave thumbprints) have a set of dos and don'ts. Being faithful to the spouse is one of the 'dos' in that list.
DomainK Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 How does that contradict the concept of free society and/or democracy? Suppose you are employed with a company xyz and you sign an agreement with the company which states that you won't work for anyone else as long as you are employed with them. And then' date=' to get some additional experience (pun intended :P ), you start working part time for company abc. If caught, you will be in a spot. You can't then say that you are working there by your [i']free will and company abc knows that you are employed elsewhere, but still doesn't have a problem with you working with them. Free society doesn't mean that you can unilaterally renege on an agreement you make (in this case with your spouse). Marriage between two people is a contractual agreement to follow certain rules. Remember, all marriages are registered and the registration form on which all married people sign (or leave thumbprints) have a set of dos and don'ts. Being faithful to the spouse is one of the 'dos' in that list. Interesting example Mariyam. Where it adequately explains how the law views marriage as an agreement between two individuals, I see how cleverly portrayed the wife as the employer and the husband as the employee. :hatsoff: Now if someone asks why the law is not applicable to the woman, you will say "the employer can employ as many employees as she wants, but the employees can not work for more than one employer at a time". Lawyers
Mariyam Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Interesting example Mariyam. Where it adequately explains how the law views marriage as an agreement between two individuals, I see how cleverly portrayed the wife as the employer and the husband as the employee. :hatsoff: Now if someone asks why the law is not applicable to the woman, you will say "the employer can employ as many employees as she wants, but the employees can not work for more than one employer at a time". Lawyers :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha: Brilliant!!!!!!! :hatsoff: ( I was thinking of a retort on those lines :P)
Tiger80 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Interesting example Mariyam. Where it adequately explains how the law views marriage as an agreement between two individuals, I see how cleverly portrayed the wife as the employer and the husband as the employee. :hatsoff: Now if someone asks why the law is not applicable to the woman, you will say "the employer can employ as many employees as she wants, but the employees can not work for more than one employer at a time". Lawyers Well actually lot of feminists say ,that according to adultery law a woman is property of man,so She is not punished ,so this law is against the women too as it consider wife to be aproperty of a man
Zelig Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Dont forget that you are a male.. You'll never be too tired for sex :giggity: haji paaji :five:
Recommended Posts