Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a husband's plea for divorce, rejecting his claims that his wife's alleged addiction to watching pornography and self-pleasure constituted cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The bench, comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima, held that such personal acts do not automatically translate into legal cruelty warranting the dissolution of marriage.

The man sought divorce from his wife citing multiple grounds, including cruelty and an unproven claim that she suffered from a venereal disease. The family court in Karur had earlier ruled against him, leading him to appeal before the high court. The family court has also allowed the wife's restitution of conjugal rights plea.

The high court examined the allegations and found that the husband's claims lacked evidence. Court noted that no medical tests or expert opinions were submitted to substantiate the claim regarding a venereal disease. It emphasized that such accusations carry a serious social stigma and require strict proof.

Regarding the husband's claim that his wife frequently watched pornography and engaged in self-pleasure, the court held that these actions, in themselves, do not amount to cruelty. "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," court said. 

It further remarked on masturbation by women. "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", the bench said.

Court stressed, "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".

Court further emphasised that 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", it said.

The judgment also delved into morality within marriage.

Court said, "Since it (porn) 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".

Further, the court pointed out the absence of corroborative evidence for other claims of cruelty. The husband alleged that his wife was a spendthrift, neglected household duties, mistreated his parents, and had long phone conversations. However, no witnesses or substantive proof were presented to support these assertions.

Court also took note of the couple's cohabitation for nearly two years after marriage and reasoned that if the husband truly believed his wife’s behavior was intolerable, he would not have waited so long to seek a divorce.

In conclusion, the high court upheld the family court's decision, dismissing the husband's appeal.

Case Title: xxx vs. yyy