Wife watching porn privately and masturbating not cruelty to husband: Madras high court

MADURAI: The act of a woman merely watching porn privately and masturbating by itself may not constitute cruelty to her husband, said Madras high court, confirming a family court order refusing to grant divorce to a man.

"When masturbation among men is acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatised. 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," observed a division bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima on Wednesday.

As for the man’s allegation that his wife indulged in masturbation, the judges said: “Calling upon a woman to respond to this averment itself is a gross infringement of her sexual autonomy. 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.”

Also, “the act of the respondent (wife) in merely watching porn privately by itself may not constitute cruelty to the appellant (husband). 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 judges observed.

As per law, cruelty emanating from a spouse should be directed towards the wife/husband. If the act in question concerns one spouse alone and it is not directed towards the other, the act by itself would not constitute cruelty, it clarified.

The court was hearing an appeal preferred by a man (appellant) challenging the order of the family court in Karur district which had dismissed his application seeking divorce.

Their marriage was solemnised in July 2018 in a temple as per the Hindu rites and customs. It was the second marriage for both and no child was born through this wedlock. They separated in Dec 2020.

While the wife filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, the man sought divorce. In Feb 2024, the family court dismissed the man’s plea. Challenging the order, he had preferred the present appeal in 2024.

The man had made the following allegations against his wife: She was a spendthrift, addicted to watching porn and often indulged in masturbation, refused to do household chores, ill-treated her in-laws and used to engage herself in long telephonic conversations.

She, however, denied all the allegations saying that they would not have been living together for close to two years if they were true.

The judges held that the husband was not able to prove the other allegations pertaining to cruelty. The other ground raised by the appellant is that his wife is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form. Though he had stated that he suffered from physical ailments after having sexual intercourse, he had not produced his medical reports.