In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has held that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self-pleasure does not amount to cruelty to the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act unless it demonstrably affects the marital relationship. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima in C.M.A.(MD) Nos.460 & 1515 of 2024.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife), whose marriage was solemnized on July 1, 2018, at Arulmighu Pasupatheeswara Temple, Karur. The couple had been living separately since December 9, 2020.
The appellant filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and that his wife was allegedly suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form. His petition for divorce was dismissed by the Family Court, Karur, while the respondent’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
Venereal Disease as a Ground for Divorce – The appellant alleged that his wife suffered from a sexually transmitted disease, making their cohabitation impossible.
Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – The appellant argued that the wife watching porn, engaging in self-pleasure, refusing household chores, ill-treating in-laws, and excessive phone usage amounted to cruelty.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Venereal Disease Allegation Rejected
The court underscored that accusing a spouse of a venereal disease carries a serious stigma and requires strict proof. The appellant failed to produce any credible medical evidence to support his claim. The court noted:
“The fact that the other party is suffering from the particular affliction is not sufficient by itself to grant divorce. The other party must be given an opportunity to show that his or her condition is not an outcome of a morally deviant conduct but is due to some circumstance beyond his or her control.”
Since the appellant had neither sought a medical examination of the respondent nor produced a relevant diagnostic report, the court concluded that the claim was baseless and dismissed it.
watching Pornography and Self-Pleasure Not Grounds for Divorce
The court held that watching pornography in private, unless illegal (such as child pornography), does not constitute an offense or cruelty. Justice Swaminathan referred to an earlier ruling (P.G. Sam Infant Jones v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2241) where it was held that private viewing of pornography is not punishable under law.
On the issue of masturbation, the court made a strong observation regarding women’s sexual autonomy:
“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 added that just as male masturbation is acknowledged as normal, the same standard must apply to women. It found no evidence to suggest that the respondent’s habits had impacted her ability to fulfill her conjugal obligations.
The bench further observed:
“Self-pleasure is not a forbidden fruit; its indulgence shall not lead to a precipitous fall from the Eden garden of marriage.”
“When masturbation among men is acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatised.”
“Thus, the act of the respondent 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.”
Failure to Prove Cruelty
Addressing other allegations such as refusing household chores and mistreating in-laws, the court noted that the appellant had not produced any corroborating witnesses, including his own parents. The bench emphasized that claims of cruelty must be backed by credible evidence.
Dismissing the appeals, the court concluded:
“So long as something does not fall foul of law, the right to express oneself cannot be denied.”
