On Wednesday, the madras high court denied a man's request for a divorce from his wife, citing her frequent masturbation and pornographic viewing. The woman's sexual autonomy and the fact that spousal privacy is protected by the basic right to privacy were both emphasized by the court.
The court ruled that viewing pornography in private was not illegal and that if a spouse's addiction to pornography did not violate any laws and did not interfere with fulfilling their marital duties, it could not be considered cruelty and, thus, could not be grounds for divorce.
What the petition said
After a family court denied him a divorce from his estranged wife, a resident of tamil Nadu's Karur district filed a case with the madras High Court.
According to the guy, his wife was "addicted to watching porn, refused to do household chores, ill-treated the in-laws, used to engage herself in long telephonic conversations, and often indulged in masturbation." He also claimed that his wife was reckless with money. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the wife had a venereal condition.
The court noted, however, that the male had not shown any documentation proving the woman had a venereal illness.
Redefining Marital Cruelty
The top court ruled that unless it could be demonstrated that a wife's viewing of pornography had a negative impact on their marriage, it was not cruelty to the husband.
Therefore, it may not be cruelty to the petitioner for the respondent [wife] to just view porn in secret. The viewing spouse's mental health can be impacted. That won't be considered cruel treatment of the other spouse on its own. We need something more. It would undoubtedly be terrible if the other spouse was forced to join the porn watching. The court stated that it may provide an actionable reason if it could be demonstrated that the addiction had a negative effect on the performance of one's marital duties.
Recognition of Sexual Autonomy
According to the court, it would be a "gross infringement of her sexual autonomy" to even ask a woman to address her husband's claim that his wife "often indulged in masturbation."
"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.
"If after contracting marriage, a woman has sexual relationship outside marriage, it would furnish ground for divorce. However, 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 high court said.
The Right to Privacy
The court referenced an earlier ruling from october 2024, when the judge had ruled that spousal privacy is protected under the right to privacy.
Rejection of Stigma
The court further stated that women's masturbating could not be stigmatized if it was recognized that males masturbate universally. The court stated that whereas males could find it difficult to form marriages after engaging in self-gratification, women did not have this difficulty.
Thus, the court emphasized that the wife's actions of watching porn or engaging in self-gratification could not be subject to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu marriage Act unless it could be demonstrated that the spouse had been treated cruelly. According to the Act, cruelty is a legitimate reason for divorce.
Upholding Marriage
Although porn addiction was wrong and ethically wrong, the court affirmed the family court's ruling, ruling that the husband could not file for divorce on the grounds that there had been no legal violation.
A pair of judges The ruling was issued by the madurai bench of Justices R poornima and GR Swaminathan.
The court ruled that viewing pornography in private was not illegal and that if a spouse's addiction to pornography did not violate any laws and did not interfere with fulfilling their marital duties, it could not be considered cruelty and, thus, could not be grounds for divorce.
What the petition said
After a family court denied him a divorce from his estranged wife, a resident of tamil Nadu's Karur district filed a case with the madras High Court.
According to the guy, his wife was "addicted to watching porn, refused to do household chores, ill-treated the in-laws, used to engage herself in long telephonic conversations, and often indulged in masturbation." He also claimed that his wife was reckless with money. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the wife had a venereal condition.
The court noted, however, that the male had not shown any documentation proving the woman had a venereal illness.
Redefining Marital Cruelty
The top court ruled that unless it could be demonstrated that a wife's viewing of pornography had a negative impact on their marriage, it was not cruelty to the husband.
Therefore, it may not be cruelty to the petitioner for the respondent [wife] to just view porn in secret. The viewing spouse's mental health can be impacted. That won't be considered cruel treatment of the other spouse on its own. We need something more. It would undoubtedly be terrible if the other spouse was forced to join the porn watching. The court stated that it may provide an actionable reason if it could be demonstrated that the addiction had a negative effect on the performance of one's marital duties.
Recognition of Sexual Autonomy
According to the court, it would be a "gross infringement of her sexual autonomy" to even ask a woman to address her husband's claim that his wife "often indulged in masturbation."
"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.
"If after contracting marriage, a woman has sexual relationship outside marriage, it would furnish ground for divorce. However, 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 high court said.
The Right to Privacy
The court referenced an earlier ruling from october 2024, when the judge had ruled that spousal privacy is protected under the right to privacy.
Rejection of Stigma
The court further stated that women's masturbating could not be stigmatized if it was recognized that males masturbate universally. The court stated that whereas males could find it difficult to form marriages after engaging in self-gratification, women did not have this difficulty.
Thus, the court emphasized that the wife's actions of watching porn or engaging in self-gratification could not be subject to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu marriage Act unless it could be demonstrated that the spouse had been treated cruelly. According to the Act, cruelty is a legitimate reason for divorce.
Upholding Marriage
Although porn addiction was wrong and ethically wrong, the court affirmed the family court's ruling, ruling that the husband could not file for divorce on the grounds that there had been no legal violation.
A pair of judges The ruling was issued by the madurai bench of Justices R poornima and GR Swaminathan.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel