Wife Watching Porn, Engaging In Self Pleasure Not By Itself Cruelty On Husband, Woman Retains Her Individuality Even After Marriage: Madras High Court

“Thus, the act of the respondent [wife] in merely watching porn privately by itself may not constitute cruelty to the petitioner. It may affect the psychological health of the viewing spouse. That by itself will not amount to treating the other spouse cruelly. Something more is required. If a porn watcher compels the other spouse to join him or her, that would certainly constitute cruelty. If it is shown that on account of this addiction, there is an adverse impact on the discharge of one's conjugal obligations, then it could furnish an actionable ground,” the court noted.

The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the fundamental right of privacy included spousal privacy also and the contours of spousal privacy included a woman's sexual autonomy. Highlighting that self pleasure was not a forbidden fruit, the court noted that even after marriage, the woman continued to retain her individuality and her fundamental identity could not be subsumed by spousal status.

“When privacy is a fundamental right, it includes within its scope and reach spousal privacy too. The contours of spousal privacy would include various aspects of a woman's sexual autonomy. So long as something does not fall foul of law, the right to express oneself cannot be denied. Self-pleasure is not a forbidden fruit; its indulgence shall not lead to a precipitous fall from the Eden garden of marriage. After marriage, a woman becomes a spouse but she continues to retain her individuality. Her fundamental identity as an individual, as a woman, is not subsumed by her spousal status,” the court said.

The court also remarked that when self-pleasure among men was acknowledged universally, the same among women could not be stigmatized. From a biological perspective, the court also noted that while men could not establish conjugal relationships after self-pleasure, it was not the case with women. The court thus highlighted that unless it was shown that the spouse was treated with cruelty, the conduct of the wife, in watching porn or indulging in self-pleasure could not attract Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court was hearing a husband's plea challenging the order of the family court refusing to grant him a divorce and allowing the wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The court was informed that the couple got married on July 11, 2018, as per Hindu rites and customs but they have remained separate since December 9, 2020.

The husband contended that the relationship was irretrievably broken and no useful purpose was served in keeping the relationship alive. He primarily contended that the wife was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form.

The court noted that while Section 13 (1) (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act provided for the dissolution of marriage on the ground that the spouse is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form, considering the serious stigma that was attached to such a contention, the party was obligated to provide strict proof of the same. The court noted that on such grounds, the other party should be given an opportunity to show that the condition was not an outcome of their conduct but due to circumstances beyond their control.

In the present case, the court noted that the husband had failed to produce any evidence to show that the wife was suffering from such a condition. The court noted that the husband had only produced discharge summaries and other reports from an Ayurvedic center where the wife was taking rejuvenation treatment. The court also noted that though the husband argued that he had suffered from physical ailments after having sexual intercourse with the wife, he had not marked his medical reports. The court thus concluded that the allegation was a false one.

The court noted that the only gynecological problem that the wife was having was leukorrhea or vaginal discharge which was easily treatable. Thus, the court observed that the family court was right in concluding that the grounds under Section 13 (1) (v) were not established.

Among other things, the husband had also alleged that the wife had treated him with cruelty. He alleged that the wife was a spendthrift, refused to do household chores, ill-treated the inlaws, and used to engage herself in long telephonic conversations.

The court however noted that none of the allegations were substantiated or corroborated with evidence. The court observed that even though the husband alleged that the wife ill treated his parents, he had not examined even one of the parent to prove the allegation.

Regarding the allegation of wife being addicted to watching porn and indulging in self pleasure, the court observed that though porn addiction was bad and not morally justified, as long as the there was no breach of law, the husband could not seek divorce on the ground.

“Having said so, we have to clarify that any addiction is bad and porn addiction definitely so. It would affect the viewer in the long run. Since it objectifies women and portrays them in a degrading manner, it cannot be morally justified. But personal and community standards of morality are one thing and breach of law is another. So long as the act of the respondent has not fallen foul of law, the appellant cannot seek divorce on this ground,” the court said.

Thus, observing that the husband had failed to furnish any evidence to prove his allegations, the court confirmed the Family court's order and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. Gomathisankar

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Gokulraj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

Case No: C.M.A(MD) Nos.460 & 1515 of 2024