Wife Watching Porn And Enjoying Self-Pleasure Not Cruelty, Madras HC Rejects Husband’s Divorce Plea

Madras: Emphasizing a woman’s right to sexual autonomy and recognizing that the fundamental right to privacy extends to spousal privacy, the Madras High Court dismissed a husband’s plea for divorce based on allegations that his wife watched pornography and frequently engaged in masturbation.

A division bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima of the Madurai bench ruled that as long as watching pornography does not violate any statutory laws and does not negatively impact one’s conjugal responsibilities, it cannot be considered cruelty or serve as grounds for divorce. The court further clarified that viewing pornography in private is not a criminal offense.

Madras HC on Divorce: Watching Porn & Self-Pleasure Not Grounds for Cruelty

Addressing the husband’s assertion that his wife frequently indulged in masturbation, the court stated that even asking a woman to respond to such an allegation would constitute a “gross infringement of her sexual autonomy.” It also emphasized that while male masturbation is widely accepted as a universal practice, women should not face stigma for engaging in the same act.

The court asserted that while extramarital affairs could be a valid reason for divorce, self-pleasure could not be equated with cruelty. “By no stretch of the imagination can masturbation be deemed to inflict cruelty on the husband,” the judgment stated.

The case involved a petitioner from Tamil Nadu’s Karur district, who had approached the High Court challenging a family court’s refusal to grant him a divorce. He argued that the lower court had failed to recognize his wife’s alleged acts as cruelty, a legally recognized ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Woman’s Right to Privacy Upheld: Court Rejects Husband’s Cruelty Claim

The husband accused his wife of being a spendthrift, refusing to do household chores, and having an addiction to pornography. He also claimed she suffered from a venereal disease. However, the court observed that the man had provided no medical proof to substantiate this claim.

According to the case details, the couple married in July 2018 but began living separately in December 2020. While the wife later sought restitution of conjugal rights, the husband filed for divorce, citing cruelty based on her private habits.

Referring to an earlier judgment delivered by Justice Swaminathan in October 2024, the court reiterated that the right to privacy encompasses spousal privacy. “When privacy is a fundamental right, it naturally includes spousal privacy as well. A woman’s sexual autonomy is an integral part of this right. As long as an act does not violate the law, a person’s right to self-expression cannot be curtailed,” the bench stated.

The court underscored that a woman’s identity remains independent even after marriage and does not get “subsumed by her spousal status.” It emphasized that self-pleasure is not a forbidden act and should not be a reason for the dissolution of marriage.