'Husband Never Complained Of Adultery': Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man Convicted For Having Sex With Married Woman On False Promise Of Marriage

The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned an order of conviction passed by a Sessions Court against a man, holding him guilty of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') for having repeated sex with a married woman on the false assurance of marriage, since the husband of such woman did not make any complaint of adultery before any competent Court.

While passing the order of acquittal, the Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma reasoned –

“In the present case, the aggrieved party that is the husband of the prosecutrix has not made complaint of adultery before the court, therefore, ingredients of section 497 of Indian Penal Code has not been made out against the appellant.”

Case Background

The prosecutrix/victim lodged a report against the appellant on January 10, 2015 alleging that six years ago, the appellant married her in a secret manner with a promise that when his younger sister will get married, he will marry her again by following proper rituals and customs.

However, even after five years of their 'secret' marriage, the appellant used to avoid her. She further alleged that in those five years of marriage, she got pregnant several times but every time the appellant used to make her abort and asked her to allow him one and a half year time to get married properly.

Subsequently, she discovered that the appellant had married to another lady one and a half year back. Based upon the aforementioned allegations, the report was lodged against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.

During the course of investigation, it came to light that the victim is already married and she also had a son out of her wedlock. It was further revealed that the alleged sexual relationship was established by the appellant with the victim between November-December, 2009 to October, 2014. The victim got divorced from her earlier marriage only in 2013.

On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari. Though initially charge was framed under Section 376 of IPC, the appellant was ultimately convicted under Section 497, IPC by the trial Court.

The Sessions Judge, Dhamtari found that the alleged sexual relationship was established and repeatedly kept by the appellant with the victim during 2009-2014. She got divorced only in 2013. This, during the subsistence of the marriage, despite knowing that the victim is a lawfully wedded wife of another man, the appellant kept sexual relationship with her without consent or connivance of her husband.

Therefore, the appellant was found guilty under Section 497 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment along with fine. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellant impugned it in this criminal appeal.

Court's Observations

Afte perusing Section 497 of IPC, the Court observed that adultery is an offence which is committed by a third person by committing sexual intercourse with the wife of a person without his consent or connivance.

In order to examine whether ingredients of the said offence are attracted in this case, the Court went through the testimony of certain witnesses. The landlord of the house, where both the appellant and the victim stayed after their 'secret marriage', stated that both the parties were residing together stating themselves to be spouses.

However, the witness revealed that one day the victim was attempting to commit suicide which was aborted upon his intervention. On being asked, she informed that despite of their secret marriage, the appellant was unwilling to marry her as per customs and rituals. When the landlord asked the appellant to marry the victim, he allegedly denied to comply with the same.

Another witness, a fellow tenant, also stated that the appellant and the victim used to live as married couple. But subsequently, the victim told him that the appellant was not desirous of marrying her. Despite such position, the appellant had made the victim pregnant several times against her will and made her to abort the same. He also deposed that the victim later on came to know about the marriage of the appellant with another lady.

Having regard for the aforesaid facts, the Court was not convinced that the ingredients of Section 497 of IPC is attracted against the appellant. It briefly summarized the following ingredients of the said offence, distinguishing the same from the offence of rape –

“a) Adultery can be committed only with a married woman, whose husband is alive, whereas rape can be committed on any woman, married or unmarried, whose husband is alive or dead or a divorced woman.

b) In adultery, woman is willing and consenting partner but in rape sexual intercourse is committed by a man against her will or without her free consent.

c) Adultery cannot be committed by a husband with his wife, but rape can be committed by a husband in certain circumstances.

d) Adultery is an offence against marriage while rape is an offence against the person of a woman.

e) In adultery, aggrieved party is the husband, while in rape, victim woman is the party aggrieved.”

The Court underlined that in the present case, the husband of the victim has not complained of adultery before any Court and hence, it is incomprehensible to prosecute the appellant under Section 497 of the IPC.

It also referred to Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) wherein the Apex Court held Section 497 to be unconstitutional. It also held that the provision to be violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution by treating men and women differently.

As a result, it found the conviction of the appellant under Section 497 of IPC to be bad in law. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Case Title: Bhaskar Rohi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No: CRA No. 172 of 2016

Date of Judgment: April 07, 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 32

Click Here To Read/Download Order