Let children have delicious food cooked by mothers instead of ordering from Swiggy, Zomato: Kerala High Court

A case concerning an offence relating to pornography saw the Kerala High Court make some interesting observations on sex, pornography and importance of providing home-cooked meals for children [Aneesh v. State of Kerala]..Justice PV Kunhikrishnan advised parents to encourage their children to play outdoors and have delicious food cooked by their mothers instead of allowing them to order food via mobile apps like Swiggy and Zomato.Below are, inter alia, some of the interesting observations by the Court. On home cooked food"Let the children play cricket or football or other games they like during their leisure time. That is necessary for a healthy young generation who are to become the beacons of hope of our nation in the future. Instead of purchasing food from restaurants through ‘swiggy’ and ‘zomato’, let the children taste the delicious food made by their mother and let the children play at play grounds at that time and come back home to the mesmerizing smell of mother’s food. I leave it there to the wisdom of the parents of minor children of this society," the judgment said..On Sex.The Court said that sex is not something for lust alone but also an expression of love and also meant for procreation."But God designed sexuality as something for a man and a woman within marriage. It is not only a lust but also a matter of love and for having children too. But a male and female who have attained majority, doing sex with consent is not an offence," the Court stated.It, however, conceded that consensual sex between a man and woman is not an offence in our country if it is within their privacy. "As such, a court of law need not recognise consensual sex or watching of a porn video in privacy because these are within the domain of the will of society and the decision of legislature," the Court stated. .On pornography.The Court said that while watching porn in private is not a punishable offence by itself, there are major pitfalls to allowing minor children unrestricted access to the internet via their mobile phones. "But before parting with this case, I must remind the parents of minor children in our country. Watching pornography may not be an offence. But if minor children start to watch porn videos, which are now accessible in all mobile phones, there will be far reaching consequences."The Court also noted that pornography has been in practice for centuries. "The new digital age has made it more accessible than ever before and it is available even to children and adults at their fingertips," the single-judge opined..On gifting mobile phones to children.The judge suggested that instead of gifting their children mobile phones for their birthdays, parents can give them a more traditional celebration with with a cake cutting ceremony and food made at home by their mothers."Instead of delicious food made by the mother and a cake cutting ceremony on birthdays of children, parents are giving mobile phones with internet access to their minor children as a gift on such occasions to make them happy. The parents should be aware of the danger behind it. Let the children watch informative news and videos from the mobile phones of their parents in their presence. Parents should never hand over mobile phones to minor children to make them happy and thereafter complete their daily routine works in their house allowing unsupervised use of mobile phones by children," the Court said. .The Court was hearing a petition moved by a man who was charged under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises the sale, distribution and display of obscene books and objects. The prosecution case was that the man was seen by the complainant standing on the side of a road watching obscene videos on his mobile phone.However, the petitioner contended that even if all the allegations against him are accepted to be true, the offence under Section 292 would not be established.Since the petitioner was accused of watching porn in private, without exhibiting it to anyone else, the Court agreed with his contention. As a result, it quashed all proceedings against him. .[Read Judgment]