The Madras High Court on Mar 19 ruled that a wife watching porn and indulging in self-pleasure is not cruelty and does not justify divorce. The court upheld a woman’s right to privacy and sexual autonomy within marriage.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court yesterday (Mar 19) dismissed a man’s request for divorce, where he claimed his wife watched pornography and often engaged in masturbation.
The court stressed that a woman’s sexual choices are part of her personal rights and that privacy within a marriage is protected under the fundamental right to privacy.
The court clarified that watching pornography in private is not illegal.
If a spouse watches porn without breaking any legal rules and if it does not negatively impact their marital duties, it cannot be considered cruelty. Therefore, such behavior does not qualify as a valid reason for divorce.
ALSO READ: [Sexual Abuse Material] “Deleting Child Porn After Downloading Also An Offence”: CJI
A man from Karur district in Tamil Nadu approached the Madras High Court after a family court refused to grant him a divorce from his wife. He alleged that she was wasteful with money,
“Addicted to watching porn, refused to do household chores, ill-treated the in-laws, used to engage herself in long telephonic conversations, and often indulged in masturbation.”
He also claimed that his wife had a venereal disease.
However, the court pointed out that the husband failed to provide any proof that his wife had a venereal disease.
The court explained that simply watching pornography does not amount to cruelty towards a spouse unless it directly harms their marital relationship.
“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 stated.
The court further explained that even asking a woman to respond to her husband’s claim that she “often indulged in masturbation” would be a “gross infringement of her sexual autonomy.”
“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 declared.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Addresses Generation Z’s Porn Addiction
“If after contracting marriage, a woman has sexual relationship outside marriage, it would furnish 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,”
-the high court added.
The court cited a ruling from October 2024, which affirmed that privacy rights also extend to spousal relationships.
Additionally, the court rejected any stigma associated with female masturbation, stating that if male masturbation is widely accepted, then female masturbation should not be treated differently. It noted that while men may face difficulties in maintaining conjugal relationships after frequent self-pleasure, the same is not necessarily true for women.
As per the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorce can only be granted on grounds of cruelty if the spouse’s behavior causes significant harm to the other. The court ruled that watching porn and self-pleasure do not meet this standard.
Therefore, the husband’s claim did not justify divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
Finally, the court upheld the family court’s decision, stating that while excessive porn consumption may be unhealthy or morally questionable, it does not break any law. Thus, the husband’s plea for divorce was rejected.
Case Title:
C.M.A(MD) Nos. 460 & 1515 of 2024
Court & Judges:
Before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Honourable Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Honourable Ms. Justice R. Poornima
Case Details:
- Appellant/Petitioner: L. Santhanakrishnan
- Respondent: T. Nirmala
- Hearing Reserved on: 31.01.2025
- Judgment Pronounced on: 19.03.2025
Legal Representation:
- For Appellant (Husband): Mr. G. Gomathisankar
- For Respondent (Wife): Mr. S. Gokulraj
Nature of Appeal:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act to challenge the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2024 issued by the Family Court, Karur, regarding H.M.O.P. Nos. 443 & 445 of 2023. The petitioner sought the dissolution of marriage (divorce), which was denied by the family court.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
