New Delhi: In a landmark ruling on women’s sexual autonomy, the Madras High Court Wednesday said that a wife watching pornography privately and indulging in self-pleasure cannot be considered cruelty to her husband.
Justices G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima rejected a husband’s request to divorce his wife because his wife’s private masturbation constituted cruelty, saying the wife’s act did not violate the law under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
“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,” the court said. “When masturbation among men is acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatised.”
“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 court said while adding that after marriage, a woman becomes a spouse but continues to retain her individuality.
These observations followed a plea by the husband challenging an order by the Family Judge in the Karur district of Tamil Nadu last 6 February, refusing his request for divorce. Subsequently, the husband approached the Madras High Court.
Also Read: Yuzvendra Chahal & Dhanashree Verma granted divorce. Cricketer to pay ex-wife Rs 4.75 crore alimony
When can a Hindu couple file for divorce?
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allows for divorce if either the husband or wife files a petition for the marriage to be dissolved on one of seven grounds.
They include adultery, cruelty, deserting one’s partner for a continuous period of two years at least, conversion to another religion, being of unsound mind and communicable diseases or sexually transmitted diseases.
The other two grounds based on which a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved are if the spouse renounces the world by entering any religious order, or has not been heard of being alive for a period of seven years, or more.
In this case, the husband had sought a divorce on two major grounds. The first was cruelty by his wife and the second was his allegation that she was suffering from a sexually transmitted disease.
To substantiate the allegation of cruelty by the wife, the husband’s case was that she was a “spendthrift”, who was also addicted to watching pornography, and often indulged in masturbation.
Besides this, he alleged that she refused to do household chores, ill-treated her in-laws, and would engage in “long telephonic conversations”.
What the court ruled
Addressing the allegation that the wife suffered from a sexually transmitted disease, the court dismissed the claims as false as no such blood report had been furnished to substantiate his accusation.
One of the charges by the husband was that the wife ill-treated her in-laws, but the court said he had failed to provide testimony by the parents to support his claim.
“None of the allegations made by the appellant have been substantiated or corroborated,” it added.
The husband’s lawyer argued before the court that although the allegation that the wife was watching pornography could not be corroborated or confirmed, the husband would not make such a claim if there wasn’t any truth in it.
Dismissing the allegations, the court noted that the husband did not call for a forensic examination of the wife’s phone to back his claims.
“Any digital activity would leave behind a digital trail. Even without subjecting the instrument or equipment to forensic examination, it is possible to gather the details and particulars from the service providers,” the court said.
Can watching porn be a ground for divorce?
The court said that privately watching pornography—that was not of a statutorily prohibited type—was not an offence.
Citing the 2021 Madras High Court ruling in P.G. Sam Infant Jones vs. State, the court said viewing pornography “privately” did not violate the law.
While it may affect the psychological health of the viewing spouse, it doesn’t amount to treating the other spouse with cruelty, the court said.
“Something more is required. If a porn watcher compels the other spouse to join him or her that would certainly constitute cruelty.
A spouse watching pornography would be actionable grounds for divorce if it was proven that an addiction to it had adversely affected a partner’s discharge of marital obligations.
The court also went on to clarify that all addictions are bad, and “porn addiction definitely so”.
Saying that it could affect viewers in the long run, the court also pointed to concerns that come with it, such as the objectification of women, and portraying them in a degrading manner.
Although the act cannot be morally justified, there is a difference between personal and community standards of morality and breaching the law, the court said.
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Rajive Ratori vs. Union of India, where the court had included spousal privacy as a part of the fundamental right to privacy.
On the allegation of the wife’s masturbation, the court said that asking a woman to respond to such claims was “a gross infringement of her sexual autonomy”.
The judges reiterated that personal sexual practices carried out privately were protected under the right to privacy.
However, if after contracting into a marriage, the wife enters into a sexual relationship outside of the marriage, it would be considered a ground for divorce, the court said, while confirming the family court’s 2024 order.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)