I would interpret this as the king being allowed to pardon the citizen who committed the adultery, if the husband chooses to forgive his wife.
I actually like the law. While it does still display an asymmetry of power in the relationship, it implements a negative incentive for cheating for both men and women. This is progress compared to a more primitive law that one could imagine where women could be punished arbitrarily, e.g. to death, while the man in the cheating act could not be punished by law.
Also, it seems better than vigilante justice. It gives both parties in the decision making the opportunity to show empathy, and so acknowledge the adultery without explicit punishment.
It's hard to grasp that old "bad" laws could still be very progressive.
I remember a teacher telling us that "an eye for an eye" should be viewed not as a crazy excessive response, but as a very modern "the punishment should be commensurate to the crime", which was not a given.
Likely that the king owns every man and losing manpower sucks, so if the husband wants to save his wife, the king can choose to save his servant who committed adultery.
I actually like the law. While it does still display an asymmetry of power in the relationship, it implements a negative incentive for cheating for both men and women. This is progress compared to a more primitive law that one could imagine where women could be punished arbitrarily, e.g. to death, while the man in the cheating act could not be punished by law.
Also, it seems better than vigilante justice. It gives both parties in the decision making the opportunity to show empathy, and so acknowledge the adultery without explicit punishment.