The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment aimed at addressing the overwhelming surge in matrimonial disputes, has sent a stern message to litigating couples: Courts are not battlefields for settling personal scores.

A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan expressed deep concern over the "manifold" increase in matrimonial cases, noting that the judicial system is being "choked" by couples who prefer endless legal warfare over reconciliation or peaceful separation.

The observations came while the Court was dealing with a particularly extreme case where a couple, who lived together for only 65 days in 2012, had spent the next 13 years entangled in over 40 different legal proceedings against each other.

The matter reached the Apex Court through a transfer petition filed by the wife, Neha Lal, seeking to shift a case filed by her husband, Abhishek Kumar, from Delhi to Lucknow. However, as the proceedings unfolded, it became clear that the marriage had reached a point of "irretrievable breakdown."

Despite having cohabited for barely two months, the parties had initiated a barrage of litigation, including:

Divorce petitions and transfer pleas.
Maintenance cases under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS).
Domestic violence proceedings.
Criminal complaints under Section 498A IPC (Cruelty).
Perjury applications and execution petitions.
Writ petitions across various jurisdictions.

Recognizing that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, while also imposing a token fine of ₹10,000 on each party for wasting judicial time.

Justice Rajesh Bindal, authoring the judgment, criticized the growing tendency of families to rush to the police station the moment a disagreement arises. The Court noted that police involvement often marks a "point of no return," especially if an arrest is made.

"Even when a complaint is sought to be registered with the police for a simple matrimonial dispute, the first and foremost effort has to be for reconciliation... instead of calling the parties to the police stations," the Bench observed.

The Court highlighted that in the modern era, the "nobility" of the legal profession is sometimes tested when advocates, instead of guiding clients toward resolution, focus on "teaching a lesson" to the other side. The judgment also flagged a disturbing trend: the creation of false evidence, sometimes even using Artificial Intelligence (AI), to bolster matrimonial claims.

The Supreme Court emphasized that mediation should not be a "last resort" but the "first step." The Bench suggested a structured approach to matrimonial friction:

Guidance by Advocates: Lawyers should act as counselors, encouraging clients to explore pre-litigation mediation before filing formal charges.
Court-Mandated Exploration: Even if a case is filed for a "trivial issue," judges should explore mediation before calling for formal replies. The Court noted that the "allegations and counter-allegations" in written replies often aggravate the dispute further.
Mediation Centers: The Court pointed out that every district now has mediation centers with encouraging success rates, where many couples have even decided to resume their lives together after resolving differences.

The Bench expressed its "anguish" over the fact that the Supreme Court is "flooded" with transfer petitions, mostly filed by wives seeking to move cases initiated by husbands. The Court remarked that many of these cases are filed as "counter-blasts" to existing litigation.

"Warring couples cannot be allowed to settle their scores by treating Courts as their battlefield and choke the system," the judgment stated. It warned that such entangled litigation not only destroys the lives of the individuals involved but also affects the broader "fabric of society."

While dissolving the marriage under Article 142, the Court noted that the wife had not claimed alimony and all previous claims were settled. However, the Court refused to let the parties go without a reminder of the burden they placed on the judiciary.

"Since the parties stayed together only for a period of 65 days and have indulged in numerous litigations for more than a decade... both of them deserve to be penalised with costs," the Court ordered, quantifying the amount at ₹10,000 each to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

This ruling serves as a vital precedent for Family Courts and High Courts across India. It reinforces the shift toward Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in family law. By highlighting the psychological and systemic cost of "40 cases for a 65-day marriage," the Supreme Court has signaled that the era of using the law as a tool for vengeance must come to an end.

Case Title: Neha Lal vs. Abhishek Kumar

Citation: 2026 INSC 73

Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan