“Wife’s Watching Porn, Self-Pleasure Not Cruelty”: Madras HC Turns Down Husband’s Divorce Plea

The Madras High Court rejected man’s request for divorce, dismissing his claims that his wife’s alleged addiction to watching pornography and engaging in self-pleasure constituted cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The bench, comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima, clarified that personal behaviors of this nature do not automatically qualify as legal grounds for cruelty warranting the dissolution of marriage.

Case Details

The man sought a divorce on several grounds, including cruelty and an unproven claim that his wife suffered from a venereal disease. He also alleged that his wife’s behavior, such as watching pornography and engaging in self-pleasure, negatively impacted the marriage. The family court in Karur had initially ruled against him, and granted his wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the husband appealed to the high court.

Court’s Examination & Ruling

Upon reviewing the case, the high court found that the husband’s claims lacked sufficient evidence. Specifically, the court highlighted the absence of any medical tests or expert opinions to substantiate the accusation of a venereal disease. The bench emphasized that such serious allegations require strong proof due to their potential social stigma.

Regarding the husband’s assertion that his wife’s viewing of pornography and engaging in self-pleasure amounted to cruelty, the court ruled that these actions alone could not be considered cruel in the legal sense. The bench noted, “While it may affect the psychological health of the viewing spouse, that by itself does not amount to cruelty. Something more is needed.”

Court’s View On Masturbation & Marriage

The court also discussed the issue of masturbation within marriage, explaining that while an extramarital affair might be grounds for divorce, self-pleasure could not be. It pointed out that masturbation, whether performed by men or women, should not be stigmatized, as it is a common and natural act.

The bench further observed, “When masturbation among men is seen as universal, masturbation by women should not be stigmatized. Men may find it difficult to engage in sexual intercourse immediately after masturbation, but this is not the case for women.” The court added, “Self-pleasure is not a forbidden activity, and it should not lead to the breakdown of a marriage.”

While the court acknowledged that pornography often objectifies women, it distinguished between personal or societal moral views and legal principles. It emphasized that as long as the wife’s actions did not breach the law, her behavior could not be used as grounds for divorce. The court stated that violating personal or community morality does not equate to a legal violation that would justify dissolving a marriage.

Lack Of Evidence For Other Allegations

The court also noted that the husband’s other claims, such as his wife being a spendthrift, neglecting household duties, mistreating his parents, and engaging in long phone conversations, were unsupported by any corroborative evidence. No witnesses or substantial proof were provided to back up these allegations.

Additionally, the court took into account that the couple had lived together for nearly two years after their marriage, suggesting that if the husband had truly found his wife’s behavior unbearable, he would have sought divorce much sooner.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Madras High Court upheld the family court’s decision, rejecting the husband’s appeal for divorce. The court reinforced that claims of cruelty must be supported by strong evidence, and that personal behaviors, even if morally objectionable, do not necessarily meet the legal threshold for cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International