Recently, the Madras High Court held that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self-pleasure does not constitute cruelty toward the husband unless it is demonstrated that such actions have impacted the matrimonial 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 noted.

The division bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima, ruled that the fundamental right to privacy extends to spousal privacy, encompassing a woman's sexual autonomy. Emphasizing that self-pleasure is not a forbidden act, the court asserted that a woman retains her individuality even after marriage, and her fundamental identity 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,” the court said.

The court observed that while self-pleasure among men is universally acknowledged, it should not be stigmatized when practiced by women. From a biological standpoint, it noted that men may be unable to engage in conjugal relations immediately after self-pleasure, whereas this limitation does not apply to women. Emphasizing this distinction, the court held that unless cruelty toward the spouse was established, a wife’s act of watching pornography or engaging in self-pleasure would not constitute grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court was considering a husband's plea challenging a family court's decision that denied him a divorce while granting the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It was informed that the couple had married on July 11, 2018, following Hindu rites and customs but had been living separately since December 9, 2020. The husband argued that the marriage was irretrievably broken and continuing it served no purpose. His primary contention was that the wife suffered from communicable disease.

The court observed that while Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for the dissolution of marriage if a spouse is suffering from a communicable venereal disease, such a claim carries a serious stigma and requires strict proof. It emphasized that in such cases, the affected spouse must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the condition was not a result of their actions but arose due to circumstances beyond their control.

In the said matter, the court found that the husband had failed to provide any evidence proving that the wife was suffering from a communicable venereal disease. It observed that he had only submitted discharge summaries and other reports from an Ayurvedic center where the wife had undergone rejuvenation treatment. Additionally, while the husband claimed to have experienced physical ailments after intercourse with the wife, he did not submit his own medical reports as evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that the allegation was false.

The court observed that the wife's only gynecological issue was leukorrhea, a treatable condition. It, therefore, upheld the family court’s conclusion that the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act were not established.

The husband also accused the wife of treating him with cruelty, claiming that she was a spendthrift, refused to do household chores, mistreated his parents, and frequently engaged in long telephone conversations.

The court noted that none of the husband's allegations were supported by evidence. It pointed out that although he claimed the wife mistreated his parents, he had not presented testimony from even one of them to substantiate the claim. Regarding the accusation that the wife was addicted to watching pornography and engaging in self-pleasure, the court acknowledged that while porn addiction might be undesirable and morally questionable, it did not constitute grounds for divorce unless it involved a breach of the law.

“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.

Concluding that the husband had failed to provide any evidence to support his claims, the court upheld the family court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The petitioner was represented by Mr. G. Gomathisankar, while the respondent was represented by Mr. S. Gokulraj.