As per the IPC 497 ,,,

As per the IPC 497, which states

"Whoever has sexual intervourse 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 offense 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 give years, or with fine or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."

The law also says,

"The contemplation of the law, evidently is that the wife, who is involved in an illicit relationship with another man is a victim and not the author of the crime. An unfaithful husband risks, or perhaps, invites a civil action by the wife for separation. One feels that there is much weight in the observation of the Supreme court when it says that the change of female life is not perhaps too right and the wife who is seduced is really the victim and not the author of the crime. In this background perhaps time is not yet ripe to punish women for adultery."

More and more women are engaged in extramarital affairs (which we all know) and husband can't file a case of adultery against her as per century old laws. The law looks at women only from one angle. Women are always innocent. If women are into some extramarital affairs, her husband can be booked as an abettor and punishable and not vice-versa.

Upon looking closely at this law, it becomes apparent that following assumptions are being made.

1) It assumes that woman as a possession of man (Man can only allow his wife to someone else if she is fully under her possession).

This assumption is in direct contradiction to Hindu marriage principles in which word
"Saha-dharma-aacharini" was used and should not even be therein Hindu Marriage
laws.

2) Woman have no mind of their own and will only do what they are told.

Obviously author of this law lived in jungle all his life and never really came across any average women. Even the most subservient woman will take her revenge as many times as she feels the need to.

3) Then law contradicts itself and says "some of the woman may try to classify it as a rape".

Was this author's self experience talking?

4) Law continues with its presumption of stupid woman to arrive at punishment.

Since woman is brainless, whats the use in punishing her?

With this kind of law, no smart woman will want to change it.

With this kind of law, I am very surprised that Indian society remained (or carried) in monogamy for so long. Law utterly and completely disregards the fact that for one straight intercourse to occur, you need one willing (and erectable) male and one willing (and lubricated) female. Fact that females can lubricate under fear or self-defence (as in rape) can diminish her willingness.

Also, law does not answer the question, what would intercourse be called if I accept money to allow someone to have intercourse with my possession (wife).

And who would own the child if she does end up with one? Who wrote this law?
Obviously some real "Lord of the last bench"

This law is actually male-superiority based and thinks of woman as stupid or brainless. Few of the Woman accepted this verdict of stupidity very smartly and can readily distort it beyond belief.

We have to give these smart woman all the credit they deserve for twisting law as soon as they got to it.