Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Enticing or Taking Away or Detaining with Criminal Intent a Married Woman (S. 498 IPC)
Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with offences relating to the institution of marriage. These offences relating to marriage are listed between Section 493-498A of the Indian Penal Code. Chapter XX-A containing only one section (s.498A) dealing with cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives to coerce her and her parents to meet material greed of dowry was added to the IPC by the Second amendment Act,1983. In this article, we shall discuss offence enticing or taking away a married woman.
These sections serve as a legal safeguard against actions that can cause harm, deception, or injustice within the institution of marriage. By defining and punishing such offences, the law aims to maintain the integrity of marriages and promote fairness, trust, and equality between spouses. The six offences punishable herein are:
- S. 493: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage
- S. 494: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.
- S. 495: Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted
- S. 496: Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage
- S. 497: Adultery
- S. 498: Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman
Section 498 IPC:
Enticing or Taking Away or Detaining with Criminal Intent a Married Woman:
Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Essential ingredients are:
- Takes or entices away.
- Woman to be a married woman.
- The person enticing or taking away the married woman should have knowledge that she is the wife of another man.
- Taken from control of husband or person having care of her on behalf of her husband.
- Intention to have illicit intercourse.
- Conceals or detains any such woman.
Enticing means luring or alluring a married woman by using deceptive means, such as false promises, flattery, or coercion. It involves intentionally captivating her attention and inciting her to leave her matrimonial home. Taking away refers to physically removing the married woman from her lawful place of residence without her consent or against her will. This act can involve force, abduction, or even manipulating her emotions to persuade her to leave. Detaining a married woman implies holding her against her will or without her consent, often with the intention to cause harm, extract a ransom, or force her into an illicit relationship. It includes depriving her of her freedom and exercising control over her movements.
In State of H.P. v. Mt. Kala, AIR 1957 HP 42 case, where the High Court observed that the taking away of wife does not mean taking by force and means something different from enticing. “Taking” implies there is some influence, physical or moral, brought to bear by the accused to induce the wife to leave her husband. It is sufficient that the accused personally and actively aided the wife to break loose from her husband’s house or from the custody of any person who was taking care of her on behalf of the husband, when this is done with the intention stated in this section.
In Norman O’ conner v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Cal 345 case, said that the word enticement has not been defined in the Code but to entice is to take away by arousing desire or lust. There must be tangible evidence that the accused took or enticed away the woman within the meaning of the section.
In Alamgir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 436 case, the Court observed that the word “detains” means “keeps back”. The keeping back need not necessarily be by physical force, it may be by persuasion or by allurement and blandishment. There should be something in nature of control or influence which can be properly described as a keeping back of the woman. Proof of some kind of persuasion is necessary. It cannot properly be said that a man detains a woman if she has no desire to leave and on the contrary desired to stay with him.
Singana Naga Nooka Chakrarao v. State of U.P., 2007 Cr LJ 3466 case determines that the main thing to be proved in a case under section 498 is the intention of the accused, that is, whether the accused has enticed the married woman in order to have elicit sexual relations with her. The consequences of not examining the marital witness, the wife, led to the acquittal of the accused.
The words “with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person” and particularly the words “any person” postulate that it is not necessary that accused should have intention to commit sexual intercourse himself. The woman may have illicit intercourse with any person outside the wedlock and not necessarily the accused himself.
Difference Between S. 498 and S. 366 IPC:
Sometimes, the provisions of IPC 498 are confused with section 366 of IPC. Section 366 IPC is intended to protect the woman from abduction or kidnapping, where she is compelled to marry or have illicit intercourse with a person against her will. Whereas, IPC section 498 intends to protect the rights of the husband.
Conclusion:
Since the object of Section 498 is to protect the rights of the husband. Therefore, this crime cannot be defended by saying that there was consent. The husband cannot be deprived of his rights if the wife is willing to injure the said rights and the person responsible for her willingness has not detained her. Further, if a woman is taken away with the consent of the person who was in charge of taking care of her, by the husband, does not come within the meaning of enticing away under S.498 of Indian Penal Code. Marriage is also one of the essential ingredients of this section. The fact that the woman is married to the person claiming to be the husband and her marriage is subsisting should be strictly proved.