TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
PRAYER OF RELIEF
 ABBREVIATIONS

AIR……………………………..…………………………………………... All India Report

All. ……………………………………………..….……………………………... Allahabad
Art………………………………………………………..………..………………... Article
CO. ………………………………………………….……………………………..Company
CLJ ……………………………….…………………..………………..Criminal Law Journal
Cr PC …………………………………………………..…………..Criminal Procedure Code
Hon’ble ………………………………………………………...……………….. honourable
IPC ………………………………………………………………..……….Indian Penal Code
Ltd. ……………………………………………………………….………………….Limited
Ors. ………………………………………………………………….……………….. Others
PIL …………………………………………….….………………..Public Interest Litigation
SC……………………………………………………..……………………. Supreme Court
SCC……………………………………………………………...……. Supreme Court Cases
U.O.I…………………………………………………………...……………. Union of India
U.P. …………………………………………………………….……………...Uttar Pradesh
v. …………………………………………………………….……………………….Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS REFERED

 CONSTITUTION
1. D.D. BASU,COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,2009,8 TH

EDITION, VOLUME II
2. D.D. BASU,COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,2012,8 TH

EDITION, VOLUME III

 3. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA,8 EDITION, VOLUME V
TH

4. V.N.SHUKLA’S,COMSTITUTION OF INDIA,EASTERN BOOK

COMPANY,2017,13 EDITION
TH

5. S.R.BHANSALI,THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,2010,VOLUME I

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

1. MANOHAR AND CHITALEY, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 4TH
EDITION, VOLUME 5

 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

B. WEBSITE REFFERED

1. www.lexisnexisacademic.com
2. www.vakilnol.com
3. www.indiakanoon.org
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.ncaer.org
6. www.legalsutra.org
7. www.legalserviceindia.com
8. www.thehindu.com

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Arun and Mrs. Arun were married in 2016 and were residents of Mangalore in
Karnataka state as he was working there in shipping and fishing company.
2. After 4 years of their happy marital life, Mrs.Arun became aware that she cannot give
birth to a healthy child by reading medical report kept secretly by her husband.
3. As per the report he suffered from some serious congenital medical problem that may
pass on their child. Although she was interested, her husband is not interested to adopt a
child.
4. After some time Mr. Arun learnt that his wife, desirous of having a healthy child,
developed extra marital relationship with his office colleague, Mr.Arun, but did not
object the same.
5. Mr. Verma confessed to his wife that he had illicit relationship with Mrs. Arun.
6. Mrs.Verma filed a complaint against her husband as main accused , Mrs. Arun second
accused and Mr. Arun as an abettor as he though his silence and acquiescence facilitated,
rather, to put bluntly, encouraged Mrs.Arun and her husband to indulge in adultery
thereby ruining her marital life.
7. She pleaded that she too shall be recognized as aggrieved person as her marital life was
disturbed with these developments
8. An NGO filed PIL in the SC with plea that section 497 of IPC, 1860 shall be struck down
as it violates article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution on the ground that the
 relevant section of IPC 1860 gives immunity to adulteress but not to men when both are
legally guilty.
9. Mrs.Verma also pleaded herself challenging the constitutional validity of section 497 in
the sc as it violates different articles of Indian constitution. She also submits that such
total immunity cannot be given to Mrs. Arun, the adulteress.
10. She also submits that s 198(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is also unconstitutional for it
discriminates on the basis of se which prohibited under article 15 (1) of the Indian
Constitution.
11. Mrs.Verma also filed a petition in the family court for divorce from her husband under
the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
12. Mr. Arun also applied for divorce from his wife under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Mrs. Arun objected that it is strange that he instead of she filed for divorce when in
reality non-disclosure of his serious health problem has brought forth this affairs.
13. After that Mr. Arun and Mr.Verma moved joint application for compounding of the
offence under the provisions of the Cr.P.C 1973.
14. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused persons
declaring that sec 497 does not violate any of the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. The respondent submits to the jurisdiction in the hon’ble Court under Article 136.

2. The jurisdiction of the hon’ble Court under Article 32 of Indian Constitution is invoked
as there is violation of Article 14, 15(1) and 21.

Issues
 1. Whether the petition filed under Article 136 are maintainable in the SC or not?

2. Whether sec 497 of the IPC, 1860 is unconstitutional being unjust, illegal, arbitrary
and violative of fundamental rights?

3. Whether sec 198(2) of the Cr PC, 1973 is unconstitutional being unjust, illegal and
violative of fundamental rights?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the petitions filed under article 136 are maintainable in the SC or not?

2. Whether sec 497 of the IPC, 1860 is unconstitutional being unjust, illegal, arbitrary
and violative of fundamental rights?

The respondent contended that sec 497 of the IPC, 1860 is unconstitutional being just and legal of
fundamental right because
 3. Whether Sec 198(2) of the Cr PC, 1973 is unconstitutional being unjust, illegal and
violative of fundamental rights?

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the petitions filed under article 136 read with article 32 is maintainable in
the SC or not?

The respondents contended that the petitions filed under Article 136 are not maintainable in the SC.

Article 136 – Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

1. Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.
2. Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence, or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to
armed forces.

The power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from the decision of any court or
tribunal, save military tribunals, is not subject to any constitutional limitation
 The Supreme Court only intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such
intervention.

2. Whether Sec 497 of the IPC 1860 is unconstitutional being unjust, illegal, arbitrary
and violative of fundamental rights?

The petitioner contended that section 497 of the IPC, 1860 is unconstitutional being unjust, illegal,
arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.

Section 497 state 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 offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery,
and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extended
to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an
abettor.

The offence is committed only by man who has sexual intercourse with the wife of another man and
without the latter’s consent or connivance. The wife is not punishable for being an adulteress, or
even as an abettor of the offence for which the man can be(but never is) sent to jail for 5 years.

The fundamentals rights of Indian Constitution that are violates from section 497 are as follows

Article 14 of Indian constitution- Right to equality

Article 15 of Indian constitution- Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth
Article 21of Indian constitution- -Protection of life and personal liberty

Article 15 states that-

It prohibits the discrimination by the state against any citizen on grounds 'only' of religion, caste, race,
sex and place of birth. The use of world only means that discrimination on other grounds is not
prohibited.

Article 15(3) that operate as a cover for exemption from an offence having penal consequences as a
section which perpetuates oppression of women is unsustainable in law, cannot take cover under
the guise of protective discrimination.

Article 14 stated that

The equality does not speak of formal equality before the law, but embodies the concept of real and
substantive equality which strikes at the inequalities arising on account of vast social and
economic differentiation

Article 21 stated that

Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty by the executive, save in accordance with
the law.

Woman also have the right to life and liberty , they also have right to respected and treated as equal
citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated. They also have the right to lead
honourable and peaceful life.

Section 497 fails to meet the three fold requirement for a restriction on article 21 to be reasonable and
valid ie, legality, need and proportionality.