Wife masturbating right to spousal privacy; if porn watcher compels other spouse to join, that’s cruelty: Madras HC

The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a man’s plea seeking divorce from his wife on the ground that she watched pornography and often masturbated. The court emphasised the woman’s sexual autonomy and that the fundamental right to privacy includes spousal privacy.

The court said that watching pornography in a private setting was not an offence and that if a spouse did not breach any statutory laws in watching pornography and if such habit did not have an adverse impact on the discharge of one’s conjugal obligations, such acts cannot be amount to cruelty and therefore, cannot be a ground for divorce.

What the petition said

A resident of Karur district in Tamil Nadu had petitioned the Madras High Court after a family court had refused to grant him divorce from his estranged wife.

The man alleged that his wife was a spendthrift 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. “The petitioner also alleged that the wife suffered from a venereal disease.”

However, the man had failed to submit any documents establishing the woman suffered from a venereal disease, the court said.

Redefining Marital Cruelty

The high court said that wife watching pornography was not cruelty upon the husband unless it was proved that the same affected their marital relationship.

“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,” the court noted.

Recognition of Sexual Autonomy

The court said that even calling upon a woman to respond to her husband’s argument that his wife “often indulged in masturbation” would amount to a “gross infringement of her sexual autonomy.”

“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.

While passing the judgment the court cited a previous judgment passed in October 2024 where the judge had held that one’s right to privacy includes spousal privacy.

In its present order, the bench said, “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.”

Rejection of Stigma

The court also noted that when masturbation among men was acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatised. While men could not establish conjugal relationships after self-pleasure, it was not the case with women, the court said.

The court thus highlighted that unless it was shown that the spouse was treated with cruelty, the conduct of the wife, in watching porn or indulging in self-pleasure could not attract Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty is a valid ground for divorce under the Act.

Upholding Marriage

The court upheld the family court’s decision and said that though porn addiction was bad and not morally justified, as long as the there was no breach of law, the husband could not seek divorce on the ground.

The petition was being heard by a two-judge Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima.

The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a man’s plea seeking divorce from his wife on the ground that she watched pornography and often masturbated. The court emphasised the woman’s sexual autonomy and that the fundamental right to privacy includes spousal privacy.

The court said that watching pornography in a private setting was not an offence and that if a spouse did not breach any statutory laws in watching pornography and if such habit did not have an adverse impact on the discharge of one’s conjugal obligations, such acts cannot be amount to cruelty and therefore, cannot be a ground for divorce.

What the petition said

A resident of Karur district in Tamil Nadu had petitioned the Madras High Court after a family court had refused to grant him divorce from his estranged wife.

The man alleged that his wife was a spendthrift 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. “The petitioner also alleged that the wife suffered from a venereal disease.”

However, the man had failed to submit any documents establishing the woman suffered from a venereal disease, the court said.

Redefining Marital Cruelty

The high court said that wife watching pornography was not cruelty upon the husband unless it was proved that the same affected their marital relationship.

“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,” the court noted.

Recognition of Sexual Autonomy

The court said that even calling upon a woman to respond to her husband’s argument that his wife “often indulged in masturbation” would amount to a “gross infringement of her sexual autonomy.”

“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.

While passing the judgment the court cited a previous judgment passed in October 2024 where the judge had held that one’s right to privacy includes spousal privacy.

In its present order, the bench said, “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.”

Rejection of Stigma

The court also noted that when masturbation among men was acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatised. While men could not establish conjugal relationships after self-pleasure, it was not the case with women, the court said.

The court thus highlighted that unless it was shown that the spouse was treated with cruelty, the conduct of the wife, in watching porn or indulging in self-pleasure could not attract Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty is a valid ground for divorce under the Act.

Upholding Marriage

The court upheld the family court’s decision and said that though porn addiction was bad and not morally justified, as long as the there was no breach of law, the husband could not seek divorce on the ground.

The petition was being heard by a two-judge Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima.