Read Time: 09 minutes
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, referencing the laws of adultery, highlighted that, “This archaic law has long outlived its purpose and does not square with today’s constitutional morality in that the very object with which it was made, has since become manifestly arbitrary having lost its rationale long ago and become in today’s day and age, utterly irrational”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, quashed an adultery case, remarking that this archaic law had long outlived its purpose. The bench noted that the laws of adultery do not align with the constitutional morality and have become ‘utterly irrational’.
The case originated from an application filed by Ashok Kumar Singh challenging the summons passed against him under adultery laws. A husband, Inderjeet, observed changes in his wife Seema's behavior. He noticed that his wife would engage in long, late-night phone calls with a man named Ashok Kumar Singh. These calls lasted up to an hour and sometimes extended beyond 11:30 p.m.
Inderjeet, therefore, alleged that Seema and Ashok flew to Lucknow, checking into Hotel Piccadilly as husband and wife. When he confronted her upon their return, Seema allegedly told him to leave if he couldn’t accept her choices. Inderjeet sent a legal notice to his wife in April that year, instructing her to end the alleged relationship; however, upon refusal, he filed a complaint under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code — the now-defunct adultery law.
Initially, Ashok was discharged of any wrongdoing by the Magistrate in 2016, who found no evidence strong enough to go to trial. But Inderjeet pressed on — filing a revision petition. In 2018, the Additional Sessions Judge reversed the discharge and summoned Ashok to face trial.
Ashok approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, asking for the summoning order to be quashed. His legal team argued that there was no solid evidence — no hotel booking records, no admission of any sexual relationship, just assumptions and a husband’s word.
But the High Court held firm: the law no longer recognized adultery as a crime. Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code imposed criminal liability on a man for committing adultery under specific circumstances, while exempting a husband from similar liability even if he engaged in the same conduct.
The court further noted that “The first aspect which emerges is that ironically, it is not the husband or the alleged adulterous wife, who is the accused for the offence under Section 497 IPC; rather it is the third person who allegedly has sexual intercourse with the wife of another man who becomes an accused person”. As per Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only the husband could file a complaint, thereby excluding the wife as a potential victim and reinforcing a gender-biased view.
The cout highlighted the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Joseph Shine v Union [AIR 2018 SC 4898], that the law created an unequal structure where only the man involved with a married woman was prosecuted. “It is absolutely a matter of privacy at its pinnacle. The theories of punishment whether deterrent or reformative, would not save the situation. A punishment is unlikely to establish commitment if punishment is meted out to either of them or to the third party”, the court highlighted. The court emphasized that adultery could be a result of marital breakdown rather than its cause, and criminalising it served neither a deterrent nor reformative purpose.
The court opined that “the wife who has committed adultery, is not the subject matter of offence, and cannot, for the reason that she is regarded only as a chattel, even be punished as an abettor. This is also for the chauvinistic logic that the third party male had seduced her, she being a victim”.
Furthermore, the court remarked that such a legal framework, which viewed women through a lens of ownership, was declared incompatible with constitutional values of dignity, equality, and privacy. Drawing a historical reference, the court compared this mindset to the episode from the Mahabharata, where Draupadi was gambled away without consent. “Despite having such example to demonstrate the consequence of absurdity of treating of a woman as a chattel, the misogynistic mindset of our Society understood this only when the Apex Court declared Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional”, the court added.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and set aside the summoning order.
For Petitioner: Advocate J.S. RawatFor Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya with Advocate Satish KumarCase Title: Ashok Kumar Singh v The State (2025:DHC:2700)
Please Login or Register
