The Madras High Court has ruled that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self-pleasure does not, by itself, constitute cruelty towards the husband. The court clarified that unless such acts adversely impact the matrimonial relationship, they cannot be considered grounds for divorce.
"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." - Madras High Court
Privacy and Individuality in Marriage
The judgment, delivered by Justices G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima of the Madurai Bench, emphasized the importance of spousal privacy and a woman's sexual autonomy. The court noted that a woman's individuality remains intact even after marriage and cannot be overshadowed by her 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." - Madras High Court
The court further pointed out that self-pleasure among men is widely acknowledged and should not be stigmatized for women. Biologically, the court remarked, men may find it difficult to engage in conjugal relationships immediately after self-pleasure, whereas this is not necessarily the case with women.
Husband’s Allegations and the Court’s Findings
The court was hearing a petition by the husband challenging the family court's decision, which denied him a divorce and upheld the wife's plea for the restitution of conjugal rights. The couple had married on July 1, 2018, but had been living separately since December 9, 2020.
The husband claimed that their relationship had irretrievably broken down. His primary contention was that the wife was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form, a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Section 13 of the Family Courts Act
However, the court emphasized that such allegations required strict proof due to the stigma associated with them. The husband failed to produce any medical evidence to substantiate his claims. He relied on discharge summaries from an Ayurvedic center, which the court deemed insufficient. The court also observed that he did not submit his own medical reports despite alleging that he suffered physical ailments after intimacy with his wife.
"If the respondent was suffering from the disease as alleged by the appellant, the appellant also would have been affected. The appellant should have marked his medical reports, but he had not done so. Therefore, one can safely conclude that a false allegation has been made." - Madras High Court
The court noted that the wife’s only medical condition was leukorrhea (vaginal discharge), which is easily treatable and does not qualify as a venereal disease.
Allegations of Cruelty Dismissed
Apart from the medical claims, the husband accused the wife of treating him with cruelty. He alleged that she was a spendthrift, refused to do household chores, ill-treated her in-laws, engaged in long telephonic conversations, and was addicted to watching pornography and indulging in self-pleasure.
The court found that none of these allegations were substantiated. The husband failed to present any witnesses, including his own parents, to corroborate his claims of ill-treatment. The court also noted that if the wife was truly addicted to pornography, forensic examination of her phone or digital records could have provided evidence, but the husband did not pursue such steps.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Orders CBCID Probe Against Law Firm Over Alleged Illegal Land Dealings
On the issue of self-pleasure, the court reiterated that it does not amount to cruelty unless it affects the matrimonial relationship.
"Calling upon a woman to respond to this averment itself is a gross infringement of her sexual autonomy. If after contracting marriage, a woman has sexual relationships outside marriage, it would furnish a ground for divorce. However, indulging in self-pleasure cannot be a cause for dissolution of marriage. By no stretch of imagination can it be said to inflict cruelty on the husband." - Madras High Court
The court also highlighted that the Supreme Court has recognized privacy as a fundamental right, which includes a woman's right to sexual autonomy.
The court dismissed the husband’s plea, affirming the family court's decision. It ruled that the allegations made by the husband were unsubstantiated and did not meet the legal criteria for cruelty or grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. Gomathisankar
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Gokulraj
Case No: C.M.A(MD) Nos.460 & 1515 of 2024
