MADURAI: Can a man seek divorce on the ground that his wife has a sexually transmitted disease (STD), watches porn and masturbates? The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court answered in the negative.
Dismissing the appeals filed by the husband against lower court orders that denied divorce to him, a bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and R Poornima observed on Wednesday that a woman’s individuality and sexual autonomy is not subsumed by her spousal status. “When masturbation among men is acknowledged to be universal, masturbation by women cannot be stigmatised,” the judges said.
Moreover, indulging in self-pleasure cannot be a cause for dissolution of marriage and definitely cannot be termed cruelty against husband. It has not been established that the conjugal relationship between the spouses would suffer if the wife has the habit of masturbation, the judges said.
Similarly, watching porn (other than the statutorily prohibited type) in a private setting does not constitute an offence, the court opined. While watching porn or addiction to porn may affect the viewer in the long run, it would not amount to treating the other spouse cruelly, unless it includes any additional act, like one compelling the other to join him or her, the judges reasoned.
They also noted that the husband has not called for forensic examination of his wife’s mobile phone to prove this allegation. Nor did he adduce any medical records to substantiate his charges that his wife suffers from STD, the court pointed out. While adultery can be a ground for seeking or granting divorce, the fact that the other party is suffering from STD is not sufficient by itself to call for divorce, the judges observed.
Recalling how a pregnant woman contracted HIV during blood infusion in a GH a few years ago, the court asked would it be fair to dissolve her marriage through no fault of her own at the instance of her husband? The court also rejected other allegations made by the husband – that his wife was a spendthrift, refused to do household chores, ill-treated in-laws and engaged in telephone conversations for long durations – for want of evidence.
Meanwhile, his wife denied all the allegations. Noting that even after careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the conclusion of the Family Court, Karur, that the husband failed to prove his case, cannot be faulted with, the judges dismissed the appeals.