Wife watching porn, masturbating not ground for divorce: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently ruled that a husband cannot seek divorce solely on the grounds that his wife watches porn or engages in self-pleasure. A Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and R Poornima emphasized that privately watching porn is not a legal offense.

While acknowledging that pornography often degrades women and can have negative long-term effects on viewers, the Court stated that such behavior may not be morally justifiable. However, it clarified that a wife watching porn in private without coercing her spouse to do the same does not amount to marital cruelty.

The Court stated: "Personal and community standards of morality are one thing and breach of law is another ... 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."

Additionally, the Court ruled that allegations of a wife masturbating do not qualify as grounds for divorce. It further noted that questioning a woman on such matters would violate her sexual autonomy. The judgment also pointed out the disparity in societal perceptions of masturbation, highlighting that while it is widely accepted among men, women face undue stigma for the same.

The ruling stated: "When masturbation among men is acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatized. While men cannot engage in sexual intercourse immediately after indulging in masturbation, that would not be the case with women. It has not been established that the conjugal relationship between the spouses would suffer if the wife has the habit of masturbation."

Merely watching porn privately by itself may not constitute cruelty ... Indulging in self-pleasure cannot be a cause for the dissolution of marriage.  - Madras HC

The Court made these remarks while dismissing a man's petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

The husband had accused his wife of being a spendthrift, addicted to pornography, engaging in masturbation, refusing to do household chores, mistreating her in-laws, and spending excessive time on phone calls. However, the Court found that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate these claims.

The Court ruled: "If after contracting marriage, a woman has a sexual relationship outside marriage, it would furnish ground for divorce. However, indulging in self-pleasure cannot be a cause for the dissolution of marriage. By no stretch of the imagination, can it be said to inflict cruelty on the husband."

Emphasizing the right to spousal privacy, the Court asserted that a woman's sexual autonomy remains intact even after marriage.

It stated: "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 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."

Spousal privacy would include various aspects of a woman's sexual autonomy. - Madras HC

A spouse cannot seek divorce solely by alleging that their partner has a sexually transmitted disease (STD) without proving moral deviance, the Madras High Court ruled.

In this case, the husband accused his wife of suffering from an STD but relied only on reports from an Ayurvedic center. The Court dismissed the claim due to the absence of a medical blood test report.

The Court stated: "Though Ayurveda is a highly respected and recognized system of Indian medicine, the allegation that the respondent is suffering from venereal disease could have been proved only by marking the blood test report ... one can safely come to the conclusion that a false allegation has been made."

It further clarified that divorce cannot be granted merely based on unverified claims about a spouse having an STD, particularly without allowing them the chance to prove that the condition, even if present, was not the result of morally deviant behavior.

"Alleging that the other spouse is suffering from venereal disease casts serious stigma. Therefore, in the very nature of things, strict proof of this allegation would be required ... 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 allowed to show that his or her condition is not an outcome of morally deviant conduct but is due to some circumstance beyond his or her control," the Court ruled.

The judgment highlighted that STDs can be contracted through factors beyond one's control. It cited the case of a woman who was infected with HIV during a blood transfusion at a government hospital, questioning whether her marriage should be dissolved for no fault of her own. The Court's answer was a firm "No."

It also referenced the autobiography of Mallika Amar Sheik, wife of poet and activist Namdeo Dhasal, who contracted STDs from her husband's promiscuity. The Court asked whether Dhasal could have sought divorce on the grounds of his wife's infection and again answered "No."

Therefore, the Court emphasized that Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows divorce on the grounds of a spouse suffering from a venereal disease, must be interpreted in this context.

"The other party, even if afflicted with a venereal disease in a communicable form, should be allowed to show that he or she was not at fault," the Court held.