“Wife watching porn, engaging in self pleasure cannot be grounds for divorce: Madras High Court.”
Last Updated on March 22, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Madras High Court recently clarified that his wife’s husband’s complaint about his wife’s pornography and self-pleasure of his wife is not valid for divorce. The decision came in response to a man from a man who claimed that his wife’s actions meant cruelness. The Court emphasized that such behavior in itself cannot be considered cruel, unless it is proven that it significantly affects a negatively marital relationship.
In its judgment, the Court repeated the importance of rights to privacy in marriage and stressed that the sexual autonomy of a woman is the basic aspect of her identity. The Madurai bench pointed out that while a woman retains her individuality after marriage, her right to sexual expression should not be rejected. The court noted, “Until something falls into the right, the right to express cannot be denied.”
The case concerned a couple married in July 2018, which separated until December 2020. The husband claimed that their relationship was irreparable and that it was unnecessary to continue. As the reasons for divorce, he quoted his wife’s alleged addiction to pornography and self -confidence. However, the court distinguished between personal moral standards and legal boundaries and claimed that addiction, including addiction to porn, is harmful to individuals and relationships, but does not in itself violate any laws.
The decision strengthened that personal habits, even if they are considered morally questionable, cannot be a reason for divorce unless they contribute to the disintegration of marriage. The court acknowledged that while the addiction to porn applies and could negatively affect the viewer, the legal reasons for marital disintegration would not be valued. “Personal and community standards of morality are one thing and breach of law is another,” the judges said, repeating that if there are no legal offenses, the husband cannot seek divorce for these reasons.
Overall, the court judgment reflects the obligation to observe individual rights in marriage and emphasizes that marriage negates the autonomy of a woman or her right to engage in her own sexual identity. This case determines the precedent of how individual sexual expressions should be addressed in connection with marital disputes, which reaffirms the need for clear evidence of damage to the demands on cruelty.
