Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan on Tuesday (January 20) flagged the surge in matrimonial litigation and said family members should make genuine attempts to settle disputes before civil or criminal action is initiated. In a long-running marital conflict between a petitioner-wife and a respondent-husband, the Bench noted that the couple had cohabited for about 65 days and had remained separated for over a decade, during which they pursued more than 40 proceedings against each other. Holding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142, directed the parties not to pursue further litigation over the matrimonial dispute, and disposed of pending cases arising from it, while allowing specified perjury-related applications to continue.

The proceedings arose from a transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of a perjury application initiated by the respondent-husband under Section 340 CrPC from the Family Court at Karkardooma, Delhi to the Family Court at Lucknow. The transfer was sought on grounds of hardship, lack of maintenance, absence of accommodation in Delhi, and alleged frivolous litigation by the respondent.

Also Read: Subordinate Legislation Takes Effect Only From Date Of Publication In Official Gazette: Supreme Court

During the pendency of the transfer petition, the petitioner-wife filed an application invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The marriage was solemnised on 28 January 2012, and the parties separated on 2 April 2012 after cohabiting for approximately 65 days. Since then, both parties initiated multiple civil and criminal proceedings against each other before family courts, trial courts, and high courts in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Allahabad.

The petitioner contended that prolonged separation, failed mediation, and extensive litigation demonstrated irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The respondent opposed dissolution, alleging misuse of legal process, concealment of facts, and pendency of perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS. No claim for alimony was made by the petitioner. The Court undertook verification of pending and disposed cases through the Registrars General of the concerned High Courts before adjudicating the matter.

The Bench observed: “From the facts of the case as noticed above, we find this to be a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage where the parties do not intend to live together and cohabitate.” “Rather they may not be able to reconcile seeing the level of bitterness generated with the passage of time.” “Level of tolerance has gone down while level of ego has risen up.” “May be the differences were so much that the couple could stay together only for 65 days and immediately thereafter litigation started.” “It may be impossible now to put the clock back and live together after forgetting the bitterness, which has been created in last more than a decade.”

The Court recorded: “They have indulged into filing more than 40 cases against each other.” “Warring couples cannot be allowed to settle their scores by treating Courts as their battlefield and choke the system.” “If there is no compatibility, there are modes available for early resolution of disputes.” “Process of mediation is the mode which can be explored at the stage of pre-litigation and even after litigation starts.” “When the parties start litigating against each other, especially on criminal side, the chances of reunion are remote but should not be ruled out.”

On conduct in matrimonial disputes, the Bench stated: “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, which is more often in the era of artificial intelligence.” “False allegations are rampant.” “As any matrimonial dispute has immediate effect on the fabric of the society, it is the duty of all concerned to make earnest effort to resolve the same at the earliest before the parties take strong and rigid stand.” “There are mediation centres in all districts where pre-litigation mediation is also possible.”

On escalation through pleadings and policing, the Court observed: “the first effort required to be made by the Court is to explore mediation instead of calling upon the parties for filing replies as allegations and counter allegations sometimes aggravate the dispute.” “Even when a complaint is sought to be registered with the police of simple matrimonial dispute, first and the foremost effort has to be for re-conciliation, that too, if possible, through the mediation centers in the Courts, instead of calling the parties to the police stations.” “This sometimes becomes a point of no return specially when any of the parties is arrested, may it be even for a day.”

On the broader trend, the Bench recorded: “In the changing times, the matrimonial litigation has increased manifolds.” “Even this Court is flooded with transfer petitions, mainly filed by the wives, seeking transfer of the proceedings initiated by their husbands, may be at the first instance or as a counter blast.” “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.”

Applying these principles to the case, the Court stated: “we find this to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties stayed together only for 65 days, are separated for the last more than a decade and have been indulging into litigation one after another.” “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.” “As a result, by passing the decree, we dissolve the marriage between the parties.”

As to consequences of the decree, the Bench directed: “the parties shall not indulge in further litigation with reference to their matrimonial dispute.” “All the cases pending between the parties, as mentioned in paragraph No.8.8, shall stand disposed of without any further action by them.” “However, the following applications filed by the parties raising plea of perjury shall continue because no one can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.”

Also Read: Attendance Shortfall Cannot Bar Law Students From Exams; Delhi High Court Grants Relief To DU Law Students

” The Court specified that applications under Section 340 CrPC and applications under Section 379 read with Section 215 of BNSS, 2023, including those pending before the Family Court and the Delhi High Court, “will not be disposed of, in view of this order passed by this Court,” and “shall be dealt with on merits by the concerned Courts.”

The Court further directed that “a copy of the order passed by this Court shall be sent to the Courts concerned for taking action as per the direction in this order. Both of them deserve to be penalised with costs, which is quantified at 10,000/- each,” and that “the cost be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.” Pending applications, if any, “also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anuj Prakaash, Adv. Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Mr. Pradum Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR

Case Title: XX v. YY
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 73
Case Number: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 338 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan