A judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal made these observations while dissolving a marriage that had been irretrievably broken for over 13 years, during which the couple had initiated more than 40 legal proceedings against each other.
The petition in the Supreme Court was filed by the wife seeking transfer of the case registered by the husband. However, in the interregnum the mediation option was explored, but could not taken up. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties.
The couple had cohabited for barely 65 days after their marriage in 2012 but remained entangled in legal battles for more than a decade. Their disputes spanned divorce petitions, maintenance cases, domestic violence proceedings, criminal cases under Section 498A IPC, execution petitions, perjury applications, writ petitions, and repeated transfer pleas across multiple jurisdictions.
Expressing anguish over such entangled litigation wasting the Court’s time, the Court suggested exploring the possibility of pre-litigation mediation to resolve such disputes without coming to Courts.
“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.”, the court said.
“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. No alimony has been claimed by the petitioner-wife and all her previous claims stand settled.”, the court ordered.
Since the parties stayed together only for a period of 65 days and have indulged in numerous litigations for more than a decade, apparently with a view to settling scores, the Court directed them to be penalised with costs of 10,000/- each, as a token amount.
The Court suggested a few steps to be taken at first and foremost whenever a matrimonial dispute arises, while criticising the tendency to rush to the police in every matrimonial disagreement:
“First and the foremost, earnest effort should be made by the parties and to be guided by the advocates, whensoever consulted in the process, is to convince them for a pre-litigation mediation. Rather in some cases, their counselling may be required.
Even if a case is filed in a Court on a trivial issue such as maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 125 of CrPC, 1973) or Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 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.
Case title : NEHA LAL VERSUS ABHISHEK KUMAR
