In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has discharged a man accused of adultery, referencing the epic Mahabharat to highlight the archaic views of women as properties of their husbands. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the case, striking a chord with the historical and cultural narrative of Draupadi’s mistreatment as a profound example of the outdated perceptions that once governed marital relationships.
The case was brought forth by a husband who accused his wife of having an extramarital relationship with the defendant. The husband alleged that his wife and the petitioner had traveled to another city, stayed in a hotel, and engaged in sexual activities without his consent. The complaint was initially addressed by a magisterial court, which discharged the petitioner, but was later overturned by a session’s court that summoned him back.
Justice Krishna heavily referenced the Supreme Court’s decision that struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which treated adultery as a criminal offense, labeling it unconstitutional. The law was criticized for its underlying assumption that a woman is merely a possession of her husband, lacking agency over her own relationships and dignity.
The court discussed how the tale of Draupadi in Mahabharat encapsulates the severe consequences of perceiving women as chattel. Draupadi was gambled away by her husband, Yudhishthira, and the passive compliance of her other four brothers during the game highlighted her lack of agency and the subsequent dire outcomes, including the onset of the great war that followed.
In her verdict dated April 17, Justice Krishna elaborated on the historical context and the judicial perspective that no longer sees the logic in treating such personal matters with criminal severity. She noted that the intent of the archaic law was not to protect the sanctity of marriage but rather the husband’s proprietary rights over his wife.
Reflecting on the broader implications of such a mindset, Justice Krishna declared, “The complexity and the anomalous situation in this section was noted by Rohinton F Nariman J. It is only on this paternalistic notion of a woman being likened to a chattel that if one is to use the chattel or is licensed to use the chattel by the licensor, namely the husband, no offence is committed.”
