Wife Watching Porn in Self-Pleasure Not Cruelty On Husband

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self-pleasure does not amount to cruelty against her husband unless it negatively affects the matrimonial relationship. The court emphasized the right to privacy, stating that a woman’s sexual autonomy is protected even after marriage.

Madras High Court Said Spousal Privacy & Sexual Autonomy Are Fundamental Rights

The Madras High Court said:

“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.”

• “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.”
• “Self-pleasure is not a forbidden fruit; its indulgence shall not lead to a precipitous fall from the Eden garden of marriage.”
• “Having said so, we have to clarify that any addiction is bad, and porn addiction 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. So long as the act of the respondent has not fallen foul of law, the appellant cannot seek divorce on this ground.”

Case Background: Husband Alleged Wife’s Pornography Viewing & Cruelty

The case involved a husband challenging a family court’s refusal to grant him divorce, while the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights. The couple, married on July 11, 2018, had been living separately since December 9, 2020.

Husband Said the Following Grounds Justified Divorce:

• The marriage was irretrievably broken.
• The wife suffered from a venereal disease in a communicable form.
• The wife treated him with cruelty, was a spendthrift, neglected household duties, and ill-treated in-laws.
• The wife was addicted to watching porn and indulging in self-pleasure.

Madras High Court Said No Proof of Venereal Disease or Cruelty

The court said that the husband failed to provide strict proof under Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding:

• Venereal Disease Claim: Medical records from an Ayurvedic center were insufficient; leukorrhea was deemed a common, treatable condition.
• Allegations of Cruelty: No corroborating evidence of parental mistreatment, as the husband did not present his parents as witnesses.
• Pornography & Self-Pleasure: Morally debatable but not legal cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Madras High Court Said Divorce Cannot Be Granted on Stated Grounds

The High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, upholding the family court’s ruling and denying divorce on the alleged grounds.

Case Details:

• Case No: C.M.A(MD) Nos. 460 & 1515 of 2024
• Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
• Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan & Justice R. Poornima
• Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. G. Gomathisankar
• Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. S. Gokulraj