Wife’s Private Porn Viewing Not 'Cruelty' For Divorce: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has dismissed a husband's divorce plea, holding that a wife's private consumption of pornography or self-pleasure does not, by itself, constitute cruelty warranting divorce.

The Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima emphasized the fundamental right to privacy, which includes spousal privacy.

It noted that even after marriage, a woman retains her individuality and sexual autonomy. "The contours of spousal privacy would include various aspects of a woman's sexual autonomy. So long as something does not fall foul of the 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," it held.

“When privacy is a fundamental right, it includes spousal privacy too. A woman’s fundamental identity as an individual is not subsumed by her spousal status,” the Bench remarked.

The case arose from a marital dispute where the husband contended that his relationship with his wife was irretrievably broken. He primarily argued that his wife was not only addicted to watching porn and indulging in self-pleasure, but that these behaviors, combined with allegations of her suffering from a communicable venereal disease, justified a divorce. The husband claimed that his wife’s conduct had negatively affected their marital relationship, citing additional complaints that she was a spendthrift, neglected household chores, mistreated his parents, and engaged in lengthy telephonic conversations.

However, the Division Bench noted that the evidence presented by the husband was largely unsubstantiated.

In support of his claims of venereal disease, the husband submitted discharge summaries and reports from an Ayurvedic center where his wife was undergoing rejuvenation treatment.

The Court, however, found that these documents did not prove that she was suffering from a communicable venereal disease. In fact, the only noted gynecological issue was leukorrhea, a condition that is both common and easily treatable.

The Division Bench clarified that while any form of addiction, including pornography, is morally objectionable and might affect an individual's psychological health, it does not automatically amount to cruelty unless it is proven that the behavior disrupts the marital relationship or forces the other spouse to participate against their will.

“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, but that by itself will not amount to treating the other spouse cruelly. Something more is required,” the Court stated.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the husband's additional allegations, such as his wife’s alleged mistreatment of his parents, lacked corroborative evidence.

"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 Bench said.

Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any actionable grounds under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek divorce. The Bench said, "Unless it is shown that the petitioner has been treated with cruelty, the conduct of the respondent cannot attract Section 13(1)(i-a)."

The Family Court's earlier order, which refused divorce and granted the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights, was therefore confirmed, and the husband’s appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: XYZ v. ABC [C.M.A. (MD) Nos. 460 & 1515 of 2024]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocate G.Gomathisankar

Respondent: Advocate S.Gokulraj

Click here to read/download the Order