'Can't let warring couples to settle scores by treating courts as battlefield': Supreme Court for exploring mediation in matrimonial disputes

Mediation can be explored at the stage of pre-litigation and even after litigation starts, says the court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that as any matrimonial dispute has immediate effect on the fabric of society, it is the duty of all concerned to make earnest effort to resolve it at the earliest before the parties take strong and rigid stand.

The top court said warring couples cannot be allowed to settle scores by treating courts as battlefield and choke the system.

Emphasising that mediation can be explored at the stage of pre-litigation and even after litigation starts, a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan said that when the parties start litigating against each other, especially on criminal side, the chances of reunion are remote but should not be ruled out.

"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," the bench said.

Couple stayed together just for 65 days

Allowing a woman's plea, the court dissolved her 2012 marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, after finding that the couple stayed together just for 65 days and have filed 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," Justice Bindal wrote for the bench in a judgment on January 20, 2026.

The court said 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, it noted.

Mediation centres

Highlighting that there are mediation centres in all districts where pre-litigation mediation is also possible, the bench said, in fact, it is being explored in number of cases and the success rate is also encouraging. In many cases, the parties, after resolution of their disputes, have also started living together.

The bench said, even if a case is filed in a court on a trivial issue such as maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, (earlier Section 125 of the 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. 

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, as this sometimes becomes a point of no return, specially when any of the parties is arrested, may it be even for a day, the court added.

Coming back to the facts of the matter, the bench said, the parties were well qualified.

"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. They may not have been made for each other," the bench said.

Wife's plea

In her plea, the wife sought no alimony but urged the court to quash the cases pending in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Lucknow and Allahabad. The husband, on the other hand, opposed it, claiming she had ruined his life and filed false cases against him. He asked the court to let perjury proceedings filed against the wife to continue.

The bench said, "Some time is taken by the young couples to understand each other and adjust accordingly. No one can be said to be perfect. Level of tolerance has gone down while level of ego has risen up. Maybe, 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."

Dissolving the marriage and quashing all the cases, except those related to perjury, the bench penalised the couple with Rs 10,000 cost each for having indulged in numerous litigation for the last more than a decade apparently with a view to settle scores.