A nationwide campaign on violence against women and fight for equality started at Freedom Park in Bengaluru on Thursday | Vinod Kumar T
BENGALURU: Women activists from the city have welcomed the Supreme Court's landmark judgment to strike down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalised adultery for men. However, a section of them have also expressed reservations on the judgment, over fears that it could be misused. Activists said Section 497 was flawed mainly on two counts — it was discriminatory based on gender, and it treated the wife as a property of the husband.
K S Vimala, a women’s rights activist from the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), echoed sentiments of the SC judgment while speaking of her approval of the verdict. She said Section 497 criminalised a specific form of adultery and was an archaic law. “Under this law only the man could be proceeded against by the husband and the offence was punishable with up to five years of imprisonment. The wife could not be proceeded against,” she said.
She added that the section was mostly used by husbands to take revenge against a person whom their wives were having an affair with, and thus the section treated the wife as a property of the husband.
Vimala also highlighted that most countries that formerly treated adultery as a crime have decriminalised it. “If a spouse has a sexual relationship outside marriage, the other spouse can always file for divorce and other matrimonial reliefs,” she said.
Lawyer, educationist and women's rights activist Pramila Nesargi said the judgment righted what was in fact a violation of the fundamental right to equality, as the section was discriminatory based on gender. She also approved of the SC’s judgeent to retain adultery as grounds for divorce.
Social worker Brinda Adige welcomed these aspects of the judgment but raised concerns on other aspects.
“This might give grounds and cause for husbands to indiscriminately divorce their wives. Men might find some excuse and say my wife was having an affair, which will malign her character,” she said. Terming the judgment convoluted, she said it should have been more specific.
