Madras HC: Wife masturbating, watching porn not valid reasons to dissolve marriage

The Madurai Bench of Madras HC presiding judges, Justices G R Swaminathan and R Poornima, upheld the right of married women to spousal privacy and sexual autonomy, stating masturbation in private and watching porn are not valid reasons to dissolve a marriage.

The court was hearing an appeal by a man, whose request to divorce his estranged wife had been earlier turned down by the family court’s order in Karur.

According to the Karur resident, his wife was a spendthrift, spoke on the phone too much, treated her in-laws badly, refused to do household chores and was ‘addicted’ to porn. He also accused her of having a communicable venereal disease but he was unable to provide any proof to back his allegations.

His wife denied all his allegations and the court held that since he could not support his allegations with any proof they could not agree to his request to dissolve the marriage.

Watch: Tamil Nadu govt vs online gamers: Over 22,000 online gamers up in arms

No stigma in women masturbating

Further, the court observed that there have been no previous cases of marriages being affected by women masturbating prior to intercourse, compared to men.

“When masturbation among men is acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatised," he said.

The court held that if the woman was engaged in an affair post-marriage, it would be considered grounds for divorce. However, indulging in self pleasure has no grounds for divorce.

“By no stretch of imagination, can it be said to inflict cruelty on the husband,” said the court.

Court’s judgement

The bench also held that the fundamental right to privacy granted to all citizens, includes spousal privacy for a wife, which also include a woman’s sexual autonomy.

The bench was responding to a complaint by the petitioner that his estranged wife was watching porn and it was an act of ‘cruelty’ towards him. The bench said that the wife’s act of pleasuring herself is not cruelty upon the husband, unless it can be proven that it affected their marital relationship.

Also read: Chennai Customs officer yanks passenger’s thali; Madras HC calls it intolerable

The court said, “Thus, the act of the respondent [wife] in 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,”

Acknowledged the sexual autonomy of a married woman, the bench clarified that, “...any addiction was bad and porn addiction was definitely so. It would affect the viewer in the long run. Since it objectifies women and portrays them in a degrading manner, it cannot be morally justified. But personal and community standards of morality are one thing and breach of law is another.”

Also read: ‘Exceeded authority’: TN govt challenges ED’s Tasmac probe in Madras HC

Case background

The petitioner was from Karur in the Tiruchirapalli district of Tamil Nadu. He had got married on July 11, 2018 according to Hindu customs and rituals but has been estranged from his wife since December 9, 2020.

He wanted a divorce on the grounds that his wife was torturing him and had a communicable STD. Meanwhile, his wife made a plea for the restitution of conjugal rights, requesting the restoration of her marital rights and status.

The court noted that Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act allowed the dissolution of marriage when one spouse had a communicable STD, the prerequisite was that the petitioner had to provide solid proof, while the accused party had the opportunity to show that their condition was not because of their conduct but due to circumstances beyond their control.

Also read: Orissa HC judge says to presume women engage in intimacy only to marry is 'patriarchal'

The petitioner was unable to provide any solid proof, apart from submitting discharge summaries from an Ayurvedic centre, where his wife was being treated. Although he argued that he suffered physical ailments post-intercourse, there were no notes in his medical reports.

The court concluded that the petitioner's allegation were false and that the only gynecological issue faced by the wife was leukorrhea, or vaginal discharge, which was easily treatable.

The court agreed with the family court in concluding that the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(v) were not established. Neither were his accusations that his wife masturbating by herself were cruel towards him.