Watching Porn or Masturbation in Private, Without More, Is Not Cruelty—Mere Moral Discomfort Cannot Justify Divorce: Madras High Court on Sexual Autonomy of Women

Self-Pleasure Is Not a Forbidden Fruit; Its Indulgence Shall Not Lead to a Precipitous Fall from the Eden Garden of Marriage - Madras High Court, in a thought-provoking and nuanced ruling dismissed the husband's appeal seeking divorce, and upheld the Family Court’s refusal to dissolve the marriage, asserting that allegations of private sexual behaviour like watching pornography or masturbation—absent evidence of impact or cruelty toward the spouse—do not constitute legal grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) or 13(1)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima observed: “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.”
“Accusation of Venereal Disease Must Be Proved with Medical Evidence—No Divorce Without Diagnostic Support”
The appellant-husband, L. Santhanakrishnan, had sought divorce on two principal grounds: first, that his wife was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form; second, that she had treated him with cruelty. Both allegations, the Court found, were either unsupported or demonstrably false.
On the first issue, the Court firmly held: “Alleging that the other spouse is suffering from venereal disease casts serious stigma… Strict proof is required.”
Noting that the husband failed to produce any medical test report, diagnostic confirmation, or expert opinion, the Court pointed out: “The appellant did not file any application for subjecting the respondent to medical examination, nor did he mark any blood test report. What was filed were discharge summaries from an ayurvedic centre, which do not establish the allegation.”
The Court concluded that the false accusation itself reflects on the conduct of the petitioner, adding:
“If the respondent had been suffering from such a condition, the petitioner would likely have been affected too—no such evidence exists.”
“Watching Porn in Private, Even If Morally Discomforting, Is Not Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)”
Rejecting the husband’s allegations that his wife was addicted to pornography and masturbation, the Court clarified: “Watching porn (other than the statutorily prohibited type) in a private setting would not constitute an offence.”
Quoting an earlier ruling (P.G. Sam Infant Jones v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2241), the Court reiterated: “Personal and community standards of morality are one thing, and breach of law is another.”
Further, it emphasized: “Cruelty, to constitute a ground for divorce, must involve acts that are directed toward the spouse. If the act in question concerns only the respondent, and is not aimed at the petitioner, it does not amount to legal cruelty.”
“A Woman’s Sexual Autonomy and Privacy Are Constitutionally Protected”
In perhaps the most impactful part of the ruling, the Court robustly defended a woman’s right to sexual autonomy, stating: “Self-pleasure is not a forbidden fruit; its indulgence shall not lead to a precipitous fall from the Eden garden of marriage.”
Recognizing masturbation as a private act protected by individual autonomy, the Court held: “Calling upon a woman to respond to such an allegation is a gross infringement of her sexual autonomy.”
The judgment drew upon the recent Supreme Court decision in Rajive Ratori v. UOI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3217], referencing the importance of acknowledging privacy and self-pleasure as integral to one’s dignity and personhood.
“Cruelty Requires Intentional Conduct Toward the Other Spouse—Private Habits Don’t Qualify”
Refusing to accept any of the cruelty claims—including watching porn, not doing chores, ill-treatment of in-laws, or excessive phone usage—the Court found no corroboration, no medical testimony, and no supporting witnesses, despite the long duration of cohabitation.
In a particularly powerful line, the Court emphasized: “So long as something does not fall foul of law, the right to express oneself cannot be denied.”
Affirming the Family Court’s rejection of the husband’s divorce petition, the High Court issued a resounding defense of personal liberty, sexual autonomy, and evidentiary rigour in matrimonial disputes.
The Court’s parting words encapsulated the spirit of the judgment: “Self-pleasure is not cruelty. Privacy is a constitutional right. A spouse is not the master of the other.”

Date of Decision: 19 March 2025