HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

WOMEN AND LAW(OPTIONAL-II) PROJECT

ON

ADULTERY : ANALYSIS AND RELEVANCE

SUBMITTED TO

M/s. MADHURIMA DE SARKAR

VIKASH GOEL

SEMESTER X

ROLL NO. 172

SUBMITTED ON

6TH APRIL, 2017

 Acknowledgement

I feel highly elated to work on this dynamic topic on “ADULTERY : ANALYSIS AND RELEVANCE”.
Its ratio is significant in today’s era when there is significant progress in the field of gender equality and
increased demand for doing away with discriminatory provisions.

The practical realization of this project has obligated the guidance of many persons. I express my deepest
regard for our faculty M/s. Madhurima De Sarkar. Her consistent supervision, constant inspiration and
invaluable guidance and suggestions have been of immense help in carrying out the project work with
success.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for their moral support and encouragement.

Vikash Goel

Semester XTH

Roll no. 172

 Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 2

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ....................................................................................................... 6

OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................... 6

SCOPE OF STUDY........................................................................................................................ 6

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 6

SUPREME COURT STANDINGS ................................................................................................ 7

CRITICISMS OF THE LAW AND SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS .................................. 9

COMMITTEE REPORTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR LAW REFORMS ................................ 12

WHETHER S. 497 IS STILL RELEVANT? ............................................................................... 13

SHOULD ADULTERY BE DE-CRIMINALISED?.................................................................... 14

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 17
 INTRODUCTION

Adultery in India is a criminal offence as per the Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC). Adultery generally means a consensual sexual relationship between a married person and
a person of other sex, who is not the spouse of the married person. 1 However, it is not necessary
that the other person is a married person.2 The offence is committed only by a man who has
sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without his consent. Adultery is an offence
which is committed by a third person against a husband in respect of his wife and of which a
man can alone be held liable for the offence.3 Adultery is considered to be an invasion to the
right of the husband over his married wife.4 The law of adultery is not applied on a woman and
has been expressly provided that the woman cannot be held for abetment of the offence. The
object of the law is to inflict punishment on those who interferes with the sacred relation of
marriage, and the legislature as well considers it to be an offence one who interferes in the sacred
matrimonial home.5 However, the framers of the Code did not include adultery as a crime; it was
only after the recommendation of the Second Law Commission it was added to the Code. 6 It is
commonly accepted that it is the man who is the seducer and not the woman, and it is considered
as an anti-social and illegal act by any peace loving and citizen of good morals, who would like
any one to be indulged in such acts before their nose.7 The section 497 of the Indian Penal Code
states that:

'* Amartya Bag is a third year student of B.A. LL.B. at KIIT Law School, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar.
Email: abag.kls@gmail.com
Hari Singh Gour, 4 Venal Law of India at 4654 (Law Publishers (India) 11th ed 2009).
2
Samraj Nadar v Abraham Nadachi, AIR 1970 Mad. 434, 437.
3
GansapalR Appalamma v GantappaR YeRayya, (1897) ILR 20 Mad 470.
4
Chandra Chhitar hoha v Mst. Nandu, AIR 1965 MP 268, 269.
5
Re Rathna Padayachi, AIR 1917 Mad 220; V. Revathi v Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 835; See also,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System 190
(2003) (“Criminal Justice” hereinafter), online at
http://www.mumbaipolice.org/%5Carchives_report%5Cmalimath%20committee%20report.pdf (visited
Sept 09, 2009)].
6
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 2 Law of Crimes at 2710 (Bharat Law House 26th ed 2007) (C.K. Thakker and M.C.
Thakker, eds).
7
V. Revathi v Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 835; See also, Hatim Khan v State, AIR 1963 J&K 56.
Adultery — Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is an 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 offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery,
and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
five years, or with fine, or both. In such case the wife shall not be punished as abettor.

The essential ingredients of the section are; i) there must be sexual intercourse with the consent
of the wife and the penetration must be sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse necessary to the
offence,8 ii) knowledge and reasonable belief that the woman is married to another man and that
marriage should be lawful and iii) the husband who has complained of the adultery had not
consented or connived the act.9

Adultery is a criminal offence according to IPC, whoever the section penalises the man involved
in the act without penalising the woman. One of the essential ingredients of the section, which
states that the absence of consent or connivance of the husband is needed to constitute the act
prima facie shows that the section is not gender neutral. The very gender neutrality of the section
has been debated many times; the constitutional validity of the section has been challenged in the
court on the grounds that it violates the fundamental rights of a man under Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution which states that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before law
or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India” and that this Section does not
come under the purview of the saving clause under Article 15 (3) of the Indian Constitution.
Equally the Section doesn’t provide any relief to any woman whose husband has done adultery,
which is also a violation of the gender neutrality clause provided in the Constitution of India. It
has been recommended for amendment by the 42d Law Commission of India reports and 2003
Malimath Committee Reports, but the law stands still date. In this context, the article tries to
analyse whether the section is actually violative of Indian Constitution, or is there a need to
neutralise the section or to make adultery a civil wrong rather than a criminal offence or not to
make adultery any offence at all.

8
See, Gour, 4 Penal Law of India at 4654-55 (cited in note 1); See also, Section 376, Explanation of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
9
See discussion, Gour, 4 Penal Law of India at 4656-61 (cited in note 1).
 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

It seems that the law relating to adultery is gender biased and discriminatory towards women and
it has become irrelevant in today’s parlance where resort to divorce law is undertaken. Hence it
is necessary to explore exclusion of such provision.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the project is:

1. Study the concept of adultery

2. Study the supreme court rulings on adultery

3. Study the law relating to adultery and its criticism

4. Study the relevance of adultery law.

SCOPE OF STUDY

Due to limitation of time, the research paper is limited to analyzing the law relating to adultery in
India and standing of judiciary. Analysis of existing law is undertaken and its relevance is
discussed.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research adopted is analytical in nature. I have referred sources on the internet as
well as a few books on Women and Law available in the university library besides adding my
personal views and knowledge of the topic. Books and other references as guided by the faculty
of Women and LawLaw have been primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure.
Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred.
 SUPREME COURT STANDINGS

The first important discussion regarding the constitutional validity of the section was held in the
case of Yusuf Abdul Aziz v The State of Bombay and Husseinbhoy Lajee.10 In this case, Section
497 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged to be ultra vires the Article 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that Article 14 is general provision and should be
read keeping in mind the other provisions which sets out exceptions to fundamental rights. Sex is
a sound classification and Article 15 (3) provides for the exceptions to the women and children.
The petitioners argued that this clause is made only for the beneficial of the women and not for
giving license for committing or abetting crime. However, the Court held that they cannot see
any restrictions as such; nor they agree that the section tantamount to a licence to commit the
offence of which punishment has been prohibited.11 The Court finally held that Article 14 and 15
when “read together validate the impugned clause in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code”.12

In the case of Sowmithri Vishnu v Union of India13 the Supreme Court held that the Section 497
is not violative of the Article 14 or Article 15 of the Indian Constitution on the grounds that14:

(1) Section 497 confers upon the husband the right to prosecute the adulterer but, it does not
confer any right upon the wife to prosecute the woman with whom her husband has committed
adultery. The Supreme Court considered this to be a policy of law, and while defining the
offence of adultery if the offence is restricted to men is not violative of any constitutional
provision.15

(2) Section 497 does not confer any right on the wife to prosecute the husband who has
committed adultery with another woman. The Court said that the law is that the wife who is
involved in an extra-marital sexual relationship is not a author of a crime but is a victim and the
10
AIR 1954 SC 321.
11
Id at 321.
12
Id at 321.
13
AIR 1985 SC 1618.
14
Id at 1620-1621.
15
Id at 1620.
legislature considers it to be offence against the sanctity of a matrimonial home, and the offence
is generally considered to be committed by a man. The procedure of law and the definition itself
speaks for who have the right to prosecute whom.16

(3) Section 497 does not take in cases where the husband has sexual relations with an
unmarried woman, with the result that husbands have, as it were, a free licence under the law to
have extramarital relationship with unmarried women. The Court said that the law does not give
freedom to men to have illicit relations with unmarried women, it only made a specific kind of
extra-marital relation as an offence which it considered to be most seen and common. The
husband can be booked under civil procedure by wife for separation. It is for the law makers to
reform the penal law as per modern times and it doesn’t offend Article 14 or 15 of the
Constitution of India.17

In the case of V. Revathi v Union of India18 the constitutional validity of S. 198(1) read with S.
198(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that it only allows the husband of the adulteress to
prosecute the adulterer but does not permit the wife of the adulterer to do so.19 The court said
that the law does not allow either of the spouses to prosecute each other under criminal law; a
husband is not permitted because the wife is not treated an offender in the eye of law. The wife is
not permitted as Section 198(1) read with Section 198(2) does not permit her to do so. Moreover
there is “reverse discrimination” in favour of women and there is no discrimination against
women so far as she is not allowed to prosecute her own husband.20

16
Id at 1621.
17
Vishnu, AIR 1985 SC at 1621.
18
AIR 1988 SC 835.
19
Id at 837.
20
Id at 838.
 CRITICISMS OF THE LAW AND SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS

A. Violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

The Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with adultery is gender biased mainly on
the grounds that it does not allow the wife to prosecute the woman with whom her husband has
adultered though it allows the husband to prosecute the man who has adultery with his wife.

The law has considered woman to be a victim not as author of the crime.21 This very notion of
victimhood lies on “the psychological belief of considering oneself helpless, lacking power to
overcome the situation and in a need of some external agency to take them out of the situation.”22
The State enhances the state of powerlessness and impotence which is central to the ideology of
victimhood through this kind of legislation.23

The contention of the Honourable Court is that the community punishes the “the 'outsider' who
breaks into the matrimonial home and occasions the violation of sanctity of the matrimonial tie
by developing an illicit relationship with one of the spouses subject to the rider that the erring
'man' alone can be punished and not the erring woman. It does not arm the two spouses to hit
each other with the weapon of criminal law.”24 However, the Court misses out the point that the
wife has no relief in Criminal law though the same provision is given to the husband, and in a
case where the woman is unmarried the woman cannot be prosecuted altogether. This can be
seen as a violation of natural justice which is fundamental to our Constitution.25 Article 14 read
with 16(1) accords right to equality or an equal treatment consistent with the principles of natural
justice.

21
Vishnu, AIR 1985 SC at 1621.
22
See, Amartya Bag, Psychology and Politics of Victimhood: A Case Study of Dalits in India 4 (Term
Paper, KIIT University, 2009), online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1409054 (visited Jan 24, 2010).
23
Id at 11-12.
24
AIR 1985 SC at 1618.
25
Subhash C. Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India at 481 (Universal Law 2008).
B. Section 497 does not come under the purview of Article 15 (3)

The framers of the Constitution believed that in the middle of the twentieth century no one would
discriminate on the ground of sex.26 However, it is clearly seen that the legislature is clearly
making discrimination on the grounds of sex on the pretext of giving “protective discrimination”
to the women. The special treatment given to the women under cl. 3 of Article 15 should be
restricted to such cases which must be related to some features or disability which are so peculiar
that it differentiate women from men as a class?1

The equality clauses in the Indian Constitution were framed on the basis of the American
Constitution, so to ignore the background is like not only violating the basic norms of
comparative constitutional law but violating the basic principles of interpretation of the
constitution.27 The American Supreme Court has stated that where both the sexes are on equal
footing and discriminations to a particular sex as a class would be like denying the equal
protection clause as enshrined in the constitution; - “the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice
is forbidden by the Constitution.”28 Even any kind favour may it be positive or negative to
the women for “administration convenience” would be repealed or struck down as discriminatory
and unconstitutional.29

The Court held that they cannot see any restrictions that the clause should be used to measures
which are strictly beneficial in nature.30 However, if we take a note of what was the intention of
our Constitution framer behind keeping such clause as Article 15(3), the scenario becomes clear.
Prof. K.T. Shah believed that:

... this discriminations is in favour of particular classes of our society which, owing to an
unfortunate legacy of the past, suffer from disabilities or handicaps. Those, I think may require
special treatment; and if they do require it, they should be permitted special facilities for some

26
Constituent Assembly Debates. Vol. VII. at 650.
27
State of U.P. v Deoman, AIR 1960 SC 1125, 1131; See also Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of
India at 1796 (cited in note 27).
28
Reed v Reed, (1971) 404 US 76, 77.
29
Frontiero v Richardson, (1973) 411 US 677, 690.
30
AIR 1954 SC at 322.
time so that real equality of citizens may be established. [...] It is only intended to safeguard,
protect or lead to their betterment in general; so that long-range interests of the country may not
suffer. (emphasis added)31

The intention of the Constitution Drafters are clear that they included this clause to safeguard,
protect or lead to the betterment of women in general; they have not intended to keep it to give a
licence for abetting or committing an offence. Even the Supreme Court did not agree that the
section tantamount to a licence to commit the offence of which punishment has been
prohibited.32

The Court said that an argument like making both man and woman held liable for adultery is not
permissible as this is a policy of law.33 An example put forward by the Honourable Court that
“why the offence of robbery should be punishable with imprisonment for ten years under Section
392 of the penal Code but the offence of adultery should be punishable with a sentence of five
years only : 'Breaking a matrimonial home is not less serious a crime than breaking open a
house'.”35 However, if we put the example in this way and check if it make discrimination that
“Why the offence of robbery by a woman be not punished and the robbery by a man is punished
for 10 years”. Can this be called a gender equal law as such, if breaking the matrimonial home is
considered to be a more heinous crime than robbery, why a woman cannot be prosecuted for the
offence? The question of policy of law does not apply here as the law is discriminatory on the
face without any valid, satisfactory reason for such laws.

The underlying law at the present situation, considers only men as offender, as a class; the
women are not physically or socially such situated that they are incapable of committing the
offence of adultery. Further, both the sexes are on an equal footing in committing the offence of
adultery, this kind of legislation are discriminatory and arbitrarily protecting the women. The
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code is nothing but violative of the equality clause under Indian
Constitution.

31
Constituent Assembly Debates. Vol VII at 655.
32
Abdul Aziz, AIR 1954 SC at 322.
33
Vishnu, AIR 1985 SC at 1620.
 COMMITTEE REPORTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR LAW REFORMS
The Fifth Law Commission in its 42d Law Reports suggested that Section 497 should not be
removed from the penal code, but it recommended that both the man and the wife should be
made guilty as there is no valid justification “for not treating the guilty pair alike” and also
scaled down the maximum punishment from five years to two years as the existing punishment is
“unreal and not call for in any circumstances”.34 The recommended section is as follows:

497. Adultery. — If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman 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 offence of rape, the man and the woman are
guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.35

The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill of 1978 provided for amendment of the section 497,
however it was not passed by the legislature. Clause 199 of the draft bill provided for36:

Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is, and whom he or she knows, or has reason
to believe, to believe to be the wife or husband as the case may be, of another person, such
sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, commits 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.

The draft bill differs from the suggestion of the 42d Law Commission Report in two ways; the
draft provided for punishment of the adultator irrespective of the gender and has retained the
maximum punishment for the offence up to five years.

The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Justice V.S. Malimath in the
year 2003 suggested that the section 497 of Indian Penal Code should be amended as to give
effect that “whosoever has sexual intercourse with the spouse of any other person is guilty of

34
Law Commission of India, Indian Penal Code Report number: 42 326-327 (1972) (“IPC Rep”
hereinafter), online at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report42.pdf (visited Sept 09, 2009).
35
Id.
36
Ki Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law at 779 (LexisNexis Buttersworth Wadhwa 10th ed 2008).
adultery...”.37 The Committee viewed that as the very objective of the section is to preserve the
sacred relationship of marriage, adultery is abhorred by the society so there is no justification
that the wife who has sexual relationship with a man is not treated equally.38 This suggestion if
accepted would make a man and a woman be treated equal as an adultator.

WHETHER S. 497 IS STILL RELEVANT?

The circumstances in which the provision of adultery had been crafted out in India has been
undergone a sea change. Today, neither there is a traditional custom of keeping one’s wife as a
bonded labour prevails at present time nor the magnitude of male dominance do exist at present.
Over the years polygamy has become illegal while monogamy has become prevalent. The period
when the principal penal law of Indian had been drafted, there were hardly any effective personal
codified laws were in existence. However, as compare to that period today the personal laws are
equal, operative, effective and efficient. This can be evident that the definition of adultery in
matrimonial laws is much wider in scope that the definition of adultery as a crime. Today,
polygamy is appeared to be exceptional and have greater disadvantages. To practice polygamy or
have extramarital relationships without attracting civil action is almost impossible.

Women have begun to establish their own identity in the society and are no more treated merely
as their husbands’ chattel. Therefore, with growing awareness of women about their rights, better
laws to their rescue, it can be conveniently being said that there are no reasons to retain adultery
as an offence in the penal code.91 Our personal laws are sufficient to take care of adultery as a
civil wrong.

Apart from the legal analysis, if the law is to be designed on the basis of social reality, let us
have a content analysis of present entertainment media. TV serials, films, Page3 items of the
newspapers, magazines of media and actual lifestyle of the metros, and every walk of life, there
are thousands of extra-marital affairs are sprinkling. People are not ‘used to’ of it, and mostly
take it as personal affair of individual and hardly considered as an exaggeration on their value

37
See Criminal Justice, at 190 (cited in note 5).
38
See Criminal Justice, at 190 (cited in note 5).
system or threat to the existence of their own marital life. However, these aspects are out of
discussion of this paper, hence left untouched in this article.

SHOULD ADULTERY BE DE-CRIMINALISED?

In most part of the European Union, including England, Austria and Italy adultery is not
considered to be a criminal offence anymore.39 The European Union (EU) has condemned death
penalty for adultery from time to time.It had also criticised the Turkey’s introduction of
punishment for adultery; it is a clear indication of the stand taken by EU of considering adultery
as a non-criminal offence.40 In United States of America the law of adultery varies from one
State to another; however after the decision in Lawrence v. Texas41 by U.S. Supreme Court the
validity of adultery law is under debate.42 Though, Islamic countries like Afghanistan, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Yemen,

Sudan, Saudi Arab, Iran have provisions for death penalty as the maximum punishment for
adultery but the concept is deeply rooted in the traditional, religious view of Shariah.4

In a survey made by the 42d Law Report Commission in 1972 on the question for the repeal of
the section 497, majority of the judges and lawyers wanted to retain the section and only a
minority want it to be repealed.43 They also argued that India has not reached such a situation to
make a radical change in the law. However, they have also revealed that there are only a few
complaints related to criminal adultery, and only a few of them are sent for imprisonment as
most of the accused in cases has been let free only with a fine.44

The United Nations Human Rights Commission has expressly mentioned that “it is undisputed
that adult consensual sexual activity in private is covered by the concept of privacy”. Also the

39
See generally, Ruth A. Miller, The Limits Of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, And Rape Legislation
In Comparative Perspective at 122-23 (Ashgate 2007).
40
EU irked by Turkish adultery law, BBC News (Sept 09, 2004),
online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3641026.stm
(visited Mar 14, 2010).
41
539 U.S. 558.
42
See, IPC Rep at 325 (cited in note 36); See also, Christopher Scott Maravilla, Prosecuting Adultery
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice after Lawrence V. Texas (self-published manuscript, 2007),
online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1003689 (visited Sept 09, 2009).
43
IPC Rep at 326 (cited in note 36).
44
IPC Rep at 326 (cited in note 36).
Committee taking into notice the criminalization of some behaviours such as those characterized
as "debauchery" by some states asked that the states “should refrain from penalizing private
sexual relations between consenting adults” and to follow the Article 17 and 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Liberty. India being a party to this covenant should
think about decriminalizing adultery. The Amnesty International has also expressedly criticized
and opposed those laws which criminalise sex between two consenting adults in private place.45

The National Women Commission, India wants that the rather than making provisions to amend
the laws to treat the women as criminal in the case of adultery they want that the section to be
repealed and treat the offence as a civil wrong rather than a criminal offence even the Supreme
Court of India has impliedly said that the man and woman should not strike each other with the
weapon of criminal law.46 Even the 42d Law Commission Report suggested that the main
objective of the law is not to put a person under imprisonment, the court generally comes in
settlement with the offender in mercenary level.47

The Supreme Court has already said that the philosophy behind this law is to that social good is
promoted that the husband and the wife is allowed to “make up” or “break up” the matrimonial
relation rather than prosecuting and dragging each other to the Criminal courts.48 They can live
together in the spirit of “forgive and forget” or get separated from each other by approaching a
civil court for divorce.49 Moreover, the law is made for the betterment of the children who can be
saved from the trauma of seeing one of the parents being jailed.50

Taking into consideration the development in other developed and progressive countries and the
suggestion from the committees and other place it is apt time to de-criminalise adultery and
make it a civil wrong

45
Death by stoning/flogging (cited in note 49).
46
See, NCW rejects proposal to punish women for adultery, The Hindu, (Dec 26, 2006), online at

http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/26/stories/2006122603270900.htm (visited Sept 09, 2009 ); See also,

V. Revathi v Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 835.
47
IPC Rep at 325 (cited in note 36).
48
Revathi, AIR 1988 SC at 838.
49
Id.
50
Id.
 CONCLUSION

The article concludes that there has been a huge change in the Indian society; women are no
longer considered to be the chattel of her husband. The law as it stands today violates the Indian
Constitution that includes equal justice for every citizen of India and would not discriminate on
the grounds of sex. The “special provision” clause under Article 15 (3) for women cannot be
extended so as to create arbitrary discretion for such discrimination by the legislature, as in the
case of adultery. The section 497 of the IPC which deals with adultery needs to be declared
unconstitutional. Suggestions from the various Law Reform Committees also give a hint that
essentially this section should be amended, or should be repealed altogether. The policy makers
should immediately repeal the current law on adultery based on the suggestions from the various
committees to give just and equal justice to the citizens of India taking into consideration the
injustice rendered in the process. Further, in the present situation the marriage is considered to be
a civil contract between two consenting adults; the civil law gives a much wider definition of
adultery, and is sufficient and effective. Taking into consideration that number of western and
developed countries has decriminalized adultery or has made it a civil wrong, there is a need to
decriminalize adultery in India as well. Looking into all these arguments, it is evident that
adultery should not be a criminal offence. This change should be done either through declaring it
unconstitutional by the Constitutional courts of the country or repealing the debated section
through legislative amendments immediately.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 2 Law of Crimes at 2710 (Bharat Law House 26th ed 2007)

 Gaur (Dr.) K.D., A Text Book on the Indian Penal Code (2004, Ed.).

 Subhash C. Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India

 Kumar K (Adv.), Punam Rani, Offences against women : Socio-legal perspectives,

Regency Pulication, New Delhi, 1st Ed. 1996

 Ruth A. Miller, The Limits Of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, And Rape Legislation

In Comparative Perspective

 Gangoli Geetanjali, Indian Feminisms : Law patriarchies and violence in India, Ashgate

Publishing Company USA, 1st Ed.2007

Websites

 http://www.mumbaipolice.org/%5Carchives_report%5Cmalimath%20committee%20rep

ort.pdf

 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1409054

 http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report42.pdf (visited Sept 09, 2009)

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3641026.stm

 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1003689