Federal Court declares law penalising men for enticing married women ‘unconstitutional’

The Federal Court has judicially repealed Section 498 of the Penal Code, holding the offence of enticing, taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman unconstitutional.

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has struck down as unconstitutional a provision in the Penal Code that makes it a crime for a man to entice a married woman.

Delivering the unanimous judgment of a five-member panel, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said Section 498 of the Penal Code is a pre-Merdeka law and Articles 162(6) and 162(7) of the Federal Constitution are applicable.

“We are of the view that the provision is incapable of any modification as it will change the character of the offence.

“Therefore, the only possible means is to judicially repeal it,” she said.

The chief justice sat with Chief Judge of Malaya Zabidin Diah and Justices Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Abu Bakar Jais and Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil to hear the appeal.

Enticing, taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman is an offence under Section 498 of the Penal Code and is punishable upon conviction with a jail term of up to two years or a fine, or both.

A 54-year-old businessman was charged with the offence at the Petaling Jaya magistrates’ court in 2020 after a report was lodged by the woman’s husband.

The Shah Alam High Court in March this year had allowed the man’s application to refer the constitutional question to the Federal Court for determination.

The court said the question of law for consideration was whether Section 498 of the Penal Code violated the fundamental right of all persons to equality before the law as set out in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the constitution.

The bench unanimously answered the question in the affirmative.

However, Tengku Maimun said the apex court’s ruling could only be applied to future cases and not retrospectively.

The bench then remitted the matter for the Shah Alam High Court to make a declaration and order under Section 85 of the Courts of the Judicature Act 1964.

Earlier, in the course of submissions, Tengku Maimun remarked that both parties had agreed that Section 498 treats married women as chattels of their husbands.

Counsel Jayarubbiny Jayaraj, assisted by Jay Moy and Puteri Batrisyia Abdul Latif, had contended that Section 498 is archaic, paternalistic and infringes on the autonomy and dignity of women.

Jayarubbiny also said the provision was discriminatory against married women and open to abuse because it treated them as the property of their husbands.

In reply, deputy public prosecutors Yusaini Amer Abdul Karim and Eyu Ghim Siang submitted that Section 498 did not violate Articles 8 of the Federal Constitution.

Yusaini said the provision was not a discriminatory law, adding that a woman in a marriage cannot be classified in the same category as a man, particularly from the aspect of protection from violence and crime as different criteria applied.

The objective of Section 498 is to protect the husband’s right to maintain a marriage, he added. - FMT