Private acts, such as watching Porn or Masturbation by wife, do not constitute Cruelty unless they directly harm the marital relationship, Madras High Court.

The right to privacy and sexual autonomy of Wife. A woman’s right to privacy extends to her sexual behavior, including acts such as masturbation, as long as they do not violate the law.

C.M.A(MD) Nos. 460 & 1515 of 2024

Introduction

The judgment, delivered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 19th March 2025, addresses two civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the appellant (husband) challenging the Family Court’s decision in H.M.O.P. Nos. 443 & 445 of 2023. The appellant sought divorce on two primary grounds: (1) that the respondent (wife) was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form, and (2) that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty, including allegations of her addiction to pornography and masturbation. The Family Court had dismissed the appellant’s petition for divorce, and the High Court upheld this decision, dismissing the appeals.

Key Legal Issues

1. Venereal Disease as a Ground for Divorce: Whether the appellant husband sufficiently proved that the respondent was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form under Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce: Whether the respondent’s alleged conduct, including watching pornography and masturbation, constituted cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. Burden of Proof: Whether the appellant husband met the burden of proof required to establish the grounds for divorce.
4. Spousal Privacy and Sexual Autonomy: The court’s interpretation of the respondent’s right to privacy and sexual autonomy in the context of the allegations made by the appellant husband.

Court’s Analysis

A. Venereal Disease as a Ground for Divorce:

i) The appellant alleged that the respondent was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form, which is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the court emphasized that such an allegation carries a serious stigma and requires strict proof.

ii) The court noted that the appellant failed to provide any medical evidence to substantiate this claim. No diagnostic reports or blood tests were submitted to prove that the respondent was suffering from a venereal disease. The only evidence presented was discharge summaries from an Ayurvedic center, which did not confirm the presence of any venereal disease.

iii) The court also highlighted that the appellant did not seek any medical examination of the respondent during the proceedings, which further weakened his case. The court concluded that the appellant had failed to prove this ground for divorce.

B. Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce:

a) The appellant alleged that the respondent treated him with cruelty, citing several behaviors, including her alleged addiction to watching pornography and masturbation, her refusal to perform household chores, and her ill-treatment of his in-laws.

b) The court analyzed the concept of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing that cruelty must be intentional conduct directed towards the petitioner. The court held that the respondent’s private acts, such as watching pornography and masturbation, did not constitute cruelty unless they were directed towards the appellant or had a direct adverse impact on the marital relationship.

c) The court further noted that watching pornography in private is not illegal under Indian law, except in cases involving child pornography, which is prohibited under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court clarified that while pornography may have moral implications, it does not, by itself, amount to cruelty unless it affects the conjugal obligations of the spouses.

d) Regarding the allegation of masturbation, the court held that it is a personal act and does not infringe on the rights of the spouse. The court emphasized that a woman’s sexual autonomy and right to privacy are protected under the law, and such acts cannot be grounds for divorce unless they directly harm the marital relationship.

C. Burden of Proof:

The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the party making the allegations. In this case, the appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence to support his claims. For instance, he did not examine any medical witnesses to prove the venereal disease allegation, nor did he provide any digital evidence (e.g., forensic examination of the respondent’s phone) to substantiate the claim of pornography addiction.

The court also noted that the appellant did not issue any legal notice prior to filing the divorce petition, which further weakened his case. The absence of prior complaints or attempts to resolve the issues through mediation or legal notice raised doubts about the credibility of the appellant’s allegations.

D. Spousal Privacy and Sexual Autonomy:

The court placed significant emphasis on the right to privacy and sexual autonomy of the respondent wife. It held that a woman’s right to privacy extends to her sexual behavior, including acts such as masturbation, as long as they do not violate the law.

The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajive Ratori v. UOI (2024), which recognized the emotional and relational needs of individuals, including the right to self-pleasure. The court held that such acts do not constitute cruelty unless they are directed towards the spouse or have a detrimental effect on the marital relationship.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Family Court’s decision to deny the appellant’s petition for divorce. The court found that the appellant had failed to prove both grounds for divorce—venereal disease and cruelty. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of strict proof in cases involving serious allegations such as venereal disease and emphasized the right to privacy and sexual autonomy of individuals within a marriage.

Implications

1. Strict Proof for Serious Allegations: The judgment underscores the need for strict proof when making serious allegations, such as venereal disease, in divorce cases. Courts will require medical evidence and other corroborative proof to substantiate such claims.
2. Right to Privacy and Sexual Autonomy: The judgment reinforces the right to privacy and sexual autonomy of individuals, particularly women, within a marriage. It clarifies that private acts, such as watching pornography or masturbation, do not constitute cruelty unless they directly harm the marital relationship.
3. Burden of Proof on the Petitioner: The judgment reiterates that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner in divorce cases. Allegations must be supported by credible evidence, and failure to provide such evidence will result in the dismissal of the petition.

Final Thoughts

The judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the right to privacy and sexual autonomy within the context of marriage. It highlights the importance of evidence-based claims in divorce proceedings and sets a high threshold for proving allegations of cruelty or venereal disease. The court’s decision reflects a progressive approach to marital disputes, balancing the rights of both parties while ensuring that serious allegations are not made lightly without sufficient proof.

Edited & reviewed

By Neeraj Gogia Advocate

9891800100

#wife, #husband, #masturbation, #cruelty, #porn, #marriage, #divorce, #highcourt, #privacy, #autonomy, #madras, #lexeagle, #law, #legal