Introduction
In a strong and timely reminder against the misuse of judicial processes in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court of India has expressed deep concern over the alarming rise in matrimonial litigation, cautioning that courts cannot be reduced to battlefields for settling personal scores. Emphasising the need for pre-litigation mediation and reconciliation, the Court observed that parties must make sincere efforts to resolve marital disputes before invoking civil or criminal proceedings.
The observations were made while dissolving a marriage that had irretrievably broken down, where the couple had cohabited for merely 65 days, yet remained locked in over 40 litigations for more than a decade.
Supreme Court Bench and Case Details
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising:
- Justice Rajesh Bindal
- Justice Manmohan
Case Details
- Cause Title: Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 73
- Date of Decision: 20 January 2026
The judgment was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Court’s Concern Over Exploding Matrimonial Litigation
The Supreme Court noted that matrimonial litigation has increased manifold in recent years, with courts—particularly the Supreme Court—being inundated with transfer petitions, often filed as a counterblast to proceedings initiated by the other spouse.
The Court observed:
“In the changing times, the matrimonial litigation has increased manifolds. Even this Court is flooded with transfer petitions… In such situations, it is the duty of all concerned including the family members of the parties to make their earnest effort to resolve the disputes before any civil or criminal proceedings are launched.”
The Bench highlighted how such disputes not only damage familial relationships but also clog an already overburdened judicial system.
Rush to Police Criticised: Mediation Must Come First
Strongly criticising the tendency to rush to police authorities over every matrimonial disagreement, the Supreme Court laid down clear guidance on how such disputes should ideally be handled.
Key Directions and Observations
The Court suggested that:
- Pre-litigation mediation should be the first step whenever matrimonial disputes arise
- Lawyers have a professional duty to guide parties towards mediation instead of immediate litigation
- In certain cases, counselling may be more appropriate than adversarial proceedings
The Court stressed that even in cases involving:
- Maintenance claims under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 125 CrPC)
- Applications under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
…the first effort of the Court must be to explore mediation, rather than calling for pleadings which often escalate hostility through allegations and counter-allegations.
Police Intervention: A Point of No Return
The Bench issued a particularly cautionary note regarding criminal complaints in matrimonial disputes.
“Even when a complaint is sought to be registered with the police of simple matrimonial dispute, first and foremost effort has to be for reconciliation… This sometimes becomes a point of no return especially when any of the parties is arrested, may it be even for a day.”
This observation reflects the Court’s concern over the irreversible damage caused by premature criminalisation of marital discord, especially when arrests are involved.
Facts of the Case: A Marriage That Lasted 65 Days
The case before the Court involved a couple who:
- Married in 2012
- Cohabited for only 65 days
- Remained separated for over 13 years
During this period, both parties initiated more than 40 legal proceedings against each other, including:
- Divorce petitions
- Maintenance cases
- Domestic violence proceedings
- Criminal cases under Section 498A IPC
- Execution proceedings
- Perjury applications
- Writ petitions
- Repeated transfer petitions across jurisdictions
The petition before the Supreme Court was initially a transfer petition filed by the wife. However, during the pendency of proceedings, mediation was explored but did not materialise.
Subsequently, the wife invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking dissolution of marriage.
“Courts Cannot Be Used as Battlefields”
Expressing anguish over the misuse of judicial machinery, the Supreme Court remarked:
“Warring couples cannot be allowed to settle their scores by treating Courts as their battlefield and choke the system.”
The Court observed that once parties resort to criminal litigation, the chances of reconciliation drastically reduce, though they should never be completely ruled out.
False Allegations and Misuse of Legal Process
In one of the most striking portions of the judgment, the Court reflected on the ethical responsibilities of lawyers and the disturbing trend of fabricated evidence.
“Practice of law is said to be a noble profession. Whenever the parties in matrimonial dispute have differences, the preparation starts as to how to teach lesson to the other side. Evidence is collected and, in some cases, even created… False allegations are rampant, more often in the era of artificial intelligence.”
The Court underscored that matrimonial disputes have a direct impact on the social fabric, making early resolution crucial.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Legal Position
After considering the facts, the Supreme Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, noting:
- Extremely short period of cohabitation
- Over a decade of separation
- Endless litigation reflecting complete incompatibility
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage, holding:
“We find this to be a fit case for exercise of our discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties.”
No alimony was claimed by the wife, and all pending claims were declared settled.
Imposition of Costs
To mark its disapproval of the prolonged and score-settling litigation, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 each on both parties, describing it as a token penalty.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is significant for several reasons:
1. Reinforces Mediation as Primary Remedy
The Court strongly pushes pre-litigation mediation as the preferred route in matrimonial disputes.
2. Clarifies Scope of Article 142
Reaffirms the Supreme Court’s power to dissolve marriages on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even in the absence of statutory recognition.
3. Warning Against Criminalisation
Cautions against indiscriminate use of criminal law in matrimonial conflicts.
4. Ethical Message to Legal Profession
Reminds advocates of their duty to de-escalate, not inflame disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar sends a powerful message that marital discord cannot justify weaponising the legal system. By emphasising mediation, reconciliation, and restraint, the Court has sought to balance individual justice with systemic efficiency.
At a time when family courts and higher judiciary are overwhelmed with matrimonial disputes, this judgment stands as a judicial call for introspection, urging litigants and lawyers alike to choose resolution over retribution.
Also Read
Supreme Court Rejects Union’s Plea to Modify Direction Mandating 50% Women in JAG Posts
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
