[Prasant2012]

Hi I am Prasant a 27 years old married man having a 8 years old child. But for may issues I am harassing by my father-in-law and my wife. Now I did not stay with my wife but sending money to her per month. But I alone. Can law permit me my to stay with another woman with live-together relationship? Please advice me. Thanks.

[N0help4u]

What country are you in?

In the USA it is illegal by old laws that are typically not enforced unless a problem arises.

If wife is forcing you out leaving you nowhere to go then why don't you go for a divorce? Apparently she doesn't want you in her life.

[Prasant2012]

what country are you in?

In the USA it is illegal by old laws that are typically not enforced unless a problem arises.

If wife is forcing you out leaving you nowhere to go then why don't you go for a divorce? Apparently she doesn't want you in her life.

Hello, This is Prasant. I am Indian. If I divorce her then I need to pay alimony a lot. Getting divorce may take long time. I may not get my child back. So I don't want to divorce her but not to stay with her. I am sending money per month. Can I stay with a different woman in live-together relation? Please suggest. Thanks

[N0help4u]

I don't know what Indias law is for living with another woman while married to your wife.

I do know you need to keep receipts of what you do send her for your own protection.

I found this maybe it will help

http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2001v6a3.htm

"It seems to us that no advantage is to be expected from providing a punishment for adultery. The population seems to be divided into two classes - those whom neither the existing punishment nor any punishment which we should feel ourselves justified in proposing will satisfy, and those who consider the injury produced by adultery as one for which a pecuniary compensation will sufficiently atone. Those whose feelings of honour are painfully affected by the infidelity of their wives will not apply to the tribunals at all. Those whose feelings are less delicate will be satisfied by a payment of money. Under such circumstances, we think it best to treat adultery merely as a civil injury."2

The Law Commissioners in their Second Report on the Draft Penal Code, however, took a different view. Disfavouring the Macaulian perception of adultery, but placing heavy reliance upon his remarks on the status of women in India, they concluded:

"While we think that the offence of adultery ought not to be omitted from the Code, we would limit its cognizance to adultery committed with a married woman, and considering that there is much weight in the last remark in Note 'Q', regarding the condition of the women in this country, in deference to it, we would render the male offender alone liable to punishment."3 Section 497 of the Penal Code reflects the above perception and defines "adultery" thus:

"497. Adultery.—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 extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."

Section 497 unequivocally conveys that the adulteress "wife" is absolutely free from criminal responsibility. She is also not to be punished (even) for "abetting" the offence. Section 497, by necessary implication, assumes that the "wife" was a hapless victim of adultery and not either a perpetrator or an accomplice thereof. Adultery, as viewed under IPC, is thus an offence against the husband of the adulteress wife and, thereby, an offence relating to "marriage".

It is in consonance with this approach that Section 198 CrPC mandates a court not to take cognizance of adultery unless the "aggrieved" husband makes a complaint. It runs as under:

"198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:



Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) perceives a consensual sexual intercourse between a man, married or unmarried, and a married woman without the consent or connivance of her husband as an offence of "198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:



Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) perceives a consensual sexual intercourse between a man, married or unmarried, and a married woman without the consent or connivance of her husband as an offence of ". A sexual link between a married or unmarried man and an unmarried woman or a divorcée or a widow, therefore, does not come within the ambit of ". A sexual link between a married or unmarried man and an unmarried woman or a divorcee or a widow, therefore, does not come within the ambit of ". It also holds the man and not the (adulteress) ". It also holds the man and not the (adulteress) " of another man, who has been unfaithful to her husband, solely responsible for the sexual liaison. IPC, it seems, views " of another man, who has been unfaithful to her husband, solely responsible for the sexual liaison. IPC, it seems, views " as an invasion of the right of the husband over his wife and therefore puts it under Chapter XX

" as an invasion of the right of the husband over his wife and therefore puts it under Chapter XX

"2

The Law Commissioners in their Second Report on the Draft Penal Code, however, took a different view. Disfavouring the Macaulian perception of adultery, but placing heavy reliance upon his remarks on the status of women in India, they concluded:

"2

The Law Commissioners in their Second Report on the Draft Penal Code, however, took a different view. Disfavouring the Macaulian perception of adultery, but placing heavy reliance upon his remarks on the status of women in India, they concluded:

"3 Section 497 of the Penal Code reflects the above perception and defines "3 Section 497 of the Penal Code reflects the above perception and defines " thus:

" thus:

"

Section 497 unequivocally conveys that the adulteress "

Section 497 unequivocally conveys that the adulteress " is absolutely free from criminal responsibility. She is also not to be punished (even) for " is absolutely free from criminal responsibility. She is also not to be punished (even) for " the offence. Section 497, by necessary implication, assumes that the " the offence. Section 497, by necessary implication, assumes that the " was a hapless victim of adultery and not either a perpetrator or an accomplice thereof. Adultery, as viewed under IPC, is thus an offence against the husband of the adulteress wife and, thereby, an offence relating to " was a hapless victim of adultery and not either a perpetrator or an accomplice thereof. Adultery, as viewed under IPC, is thus an offence against the husband of the adulteress wife and, thereby, an offence relating to ".

It is in consonance with this approach that Section 198 CrPC mandates a court not to take cognizance of adultery unless the ".

It is in consonance with this approach that Section 198 CrPC mandates a court not to take cognizance of adultery unless the " husband makes a complaint. It runs as under:

"198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:

* * *

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under Section 497 or Section 498 of the said Code: Provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the court, make a complaint on his behalf." husband makes a complaint. It runs as under:

"husband" and "

Section 497 IPC read with Section 198 CrPC, thus signifies the unequal status of " in the institution of marriage in India. It declares that: (I) man is a seducer and the married woman is merely his hapless and passive victim, (ii) he trespasses upon another man's marital property i.e. his wife by establishing a sexual liaison with the married woman with her consent but without the consent or connivance4 of her husband, (iii) husband of the adulteress wife is an aggrieved party and he (in some cases a person who had care of the married woman when the adultery was committed), therefore, is authorised to make a formal complaint, (iv) wife of the man, if he is married, who had consensual sexual intercourse with another woman, married or unmarried, is not deemed to be an aggrieved party and thereby is precluded from making a formal complaint against either her husband or the adulteress woman, and (v) a married man, with impunity, may seduce and establish sexual liaison with an unmarried woman, a widow, or a divorcée even though such a sexual link is equally potential to wreck the marriage between him and his wife

[N0help4u]

JudyKayTee agrees: What great research!
Just lucky it was in the search engine right near the top.

[cdad]

WOW.. lol

It seems that adultery only applies to women and not the men. How very strange. So in reading that its OK for " him " to live with another woman so long as she isn't married to someone else but his " wife " can't take another man or its adultery.

Very strange.

[SujaJose]

If you don't want her you Divorce her. When you want to start an additional relationship definiteluy you are cheating your wife and daughter. So must settle by spending lot of mone as she has to care of your daughter also. But keep in mind that one day you will be back to your wife only. All other things are not Satisfactory in future.

[SujaJose]

You better Divorce your wife when you don't want her. It is not fair to divorce a woman unless you find her immoral. You should pay huge amount as your daughter will be with her. But have it in mind that always wife will be with you, those who are joininf in between will definitely leave you. So better think of a reunion for your 8 year old daughtr's sake