The Supreme Court has warned warring couples against using courts to settle personal scores, saying such litigation chokes the justice system. Emphasising mediation, the Court urged early reconciliation in matrimonial disputes instead of prolonged civil and criminal battles.
In a strong message against prolonged matrimonial litigation, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday observed that couples locked in marital disputes should not use courts as a battleground to settle personal scores, warning that such litigation only burdens the justice system and deepens conflict.
The Court emphasised that mediation should be seriously explored at the earliest stage, as continuous allegations and counter-allegations often worsen disputes rather than resolve them.
The observations were made by a Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan while dissolving a marriage in which the husband and wife had lived together for only 65 days and had been separated for more than ten years.
Taking note of the complete collapse of the marital relationship, the apex court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring the marriage to an end on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
While granting the divorce, the Bench made a series of important observations on the growing trend of matrimonial litigation in India.
It said,
“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.”
Highlighting the importance of alternative dispute resolution, the Court added,
“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 the criminal side, the chances of reunion are remote but should not be ruled out.”
The Bench expressed concern over how matrimonial disputes are often approached once litigation begins. It observed that the moment differences arise, parties begin preparing to legally attack each other rather than seeking reconciliation.
The Court noted,
“The apex court said whenever the parties in a matrimonial dispute have differences, the preparation starts as to how to teach a lesson to the other side.”
Elaborating further, the judges warned about misuse of evidence and the increasing role of technology in such disputes.
The Bench stated,
“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 an immediate effect on the fabric of society, it is the duty of all concerned to make an earnest effort to resolve the same at the earliest, before the parties take a strong and rigid stand.”
The Court also pointed out that institutional support for mediation already exists across the country and has shown positive results. Stressing on the availability and effectiveness of mediation centres, the Bench said,
“There are mediation centres in all districts where pre-litigation mediation is also possible. In fact, it is being explored in a 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.”
Acknowledging the sensitive dimension added when children are involved, the apex court observed that disputes often become more complicated after the birth of a child.
The Bench remarked,
“Acknowledging that the problem is more after the birth of a child or children, the top court said many times the child becomes a bone of contention between the warring parties.”
The Court placed responsibility not only on the parties but also on lawyers and family members to promote peaceful resolution. It said,
“First and 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.”
The Bench further clarified that even when legal proceedings are initiated for seemingly minor issues, courts must prioritise mediation. It observed,
“Even if a case is filed in a court on a trivial issue such as maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 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.”
Extending this approach to police complaints arising from matrimonial discord, the Court said reconciliation should come before criminal action.
The Bench stated,
“The court said even when a complaint is sought to be registered with the police of a simple matrimonial dispute, the first and foremost effort has to be for a reconciliation, that too, if possible, through the mediation centres in the courts, instead of calling the parties to the police stations.”
Concluding its observations, the apex court noted the sharp rise in matrimonial cases in recent years and underlined the collective responsibility to prevent unnecessary litigation.
It said,
“The top court said that in changing times, matrimonial litigation has increased manifold, and 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 judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s consistent stand that mediation, counselling, and early intervention are crucial in matrimonial disputes, not only to reduce the burden on courts but also to protect families and the social fabric from long-drawn and bitter legal battles.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Broken Marriages
