Duty Of Courts, Police, Lawyers & Family Members To Make Earnest Effort To Resolve Disputes: Supreme Court On Increased Matrimonial Litigation

The petition before the Apex Court was filed by the wife, praying for the transfer of an application filed by the respondent-husband under Section 340 CrPC, seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner for the offence of perjury, from the Family Court, Delhi, to the Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held, “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. They may not have been made for each other. 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. 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.”

“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”, it added.

Arguments

The argument raised by the petitioner was that the marriage between the parties had taken place in 2012, and the petitioner had left the matrimonial home after 65 days of the marriage on account of the cruelty inflicted by the respondent and his family members. It was claimed that both parties had been indulging in litigation one after the other and it was a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in which the Court could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolve the marriage.

The respondent, appearing in-person, raised a strong objection to the prayer made by the petitioner. He submitted that they stayed together for a few days, but she left home and filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court seeking maintenance. Most of the cases filed by her resulted in their dismissal, and the respondent submitted that his wife merely wanted to harass him.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the petitioner-wife had invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to dissolve the marriage between the parties by filing an application under Article 142 of the Constitution. It was on the grounds of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. “Otherwise, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 19552 , this is not a ground on which divorce can be sought or granted”, it added.

The Bench highlighted that there are various other instances where the Court, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, has dissolved the marriage on account of irretrievable breakdown, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in those cases. This was done even though one of the spouses was not consenting to the same. The Bench noted that in some of the FIRs, the allegations were also made under Sections 377 and 376 IPC against the family members of the parties.

The Bench found that the parties' marriage was solemnised in 2012. They stayed together for a period of 65 days, and ever since, they have been in litigation one after another. According to the Bench, since they had been residing separately for more than a decade, there was no question of rehabilitation and cohabitation. It was noticed that the Bench also noted that the parties were well qualified. The petitioner, as contended by the respondent, has been working in the company of her sister and earning handsomely. The respondent is also qualified; however, he had stated that he had resigned from the position of Engineer. The petitioner’s age is about 38 years, and the respondent is about 46 years old.

The Bench held that the case was one of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties stayed together only for 65 days and were separated for the last more than a decade. “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”, it held.

Directing that the parties shall not indulge in further litigation with reference to their matrimonial dispute, the Bench ordered certain applications filed by the parties raising a plea of perjury to continue. Considering that the parties stayed together for 65 days and indulged in numerous litigations to settle scores, the Bench penalised them with costs, which were quantified at Rs 10,000 each, as a token amount.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 73)

Click here to read/download Judgment