Are Couples Choosing Litigation Over Mediation? Supreme Court Questions the Trend in Matrimonial Disputes

Indian Supreme Court’s decision in Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar (2026) raises a profound and uncomfortable question for the contemporary justice system: have matrimonial disputes transformed courts into battlefields rather than forums of reconciliation? The judgment goes beyond resolving a bitter marital conflict. It reflects a broader judicial concern over the growing tendency of estranged couples to resort to prolonged, multi-forum litigation instead of mediation, counselling, or negotiated settlement.

In this case, the Supreme Court was confronted with a marriage that lasted merely 65 days, followed by more than a decade of relentless litigation, spanning family courts, criminal courts, multiple High Courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court itself. The Court was compelled not only to dissolve the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution but also to comment strongly on the misuse of judicial processes and the systematic avoidance of mediation.

Factual Matrix: A Marriage Consumed by Litigation

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28 January 2012, but cohabitation lasted only 65 days. The spouses separated on 2 April 2012, after which litigation became the dominant mode of interaction. Over the next decade, the parties initiated more than forty civil and criminal proceedings against each other across jurisdictions, including Delhi, Ghaziabad, Allahabad, Lucknow, and the Supreme Court.

These proceedings ranged across:

• Divorce petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS
• Domestic Violence Act complaints
• Criminal cases under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS)
• Perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC/Section 379 BNSS
• Multiple execution proceedings and transfer petitions

The Supreme Court painstakingly verified case records by calling for reports from the Registrars General of the Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court, noting serious discrepancies and omissions in the parties’ disclosures. This exercise itself revealed the sheer scale of judicial resources consumed by a single matrimonial dispute.

Failed Mediation: A Missed Opportunity

Significantly, during the pendency of the transfer petition, the Supreme Court referred the matter to its Mediation Centre. However, the mediation process “could not even take off”, and the matter returned to adversarial adjudication.

The Court treated this failure not as an isolated incident but as symptomatic of a wider trend. It was observed that once parties initiate criminal proceedings, especially arrests or coercive processes, the possibility of reconciliation is drastically diminished. The Court lamented that mediation is often treated as a procedural formality rather than a genuine opportunity for dispute resolution.

Article 142 and Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

Since irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner sought dissolution through Article 142 of the Constitution, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023).

Reaffirming Shilpa Sailesh, the Court reiterated that:

• The absence of irretrievable breakdown as a statutory ground does not fetter the Supreme Court’s constitutional powers.
• The Court may dissolve a marriage even without mutual consent, if continuation serves no social or personal purpose.
• The test is not technical legality, but “complete justice”.

Applying the factors laid down in Shilpa Sailesh, the Court found:

• Separation exceeding 12 years
• Total collapse of emotional and social bonds
• Repeated failure of mediation
• Overwhelming adversarial litigation
• Absence of children or dependency concerns

All these conclusively established irretrievable breakdown.

Litigation as a Weapon, Not a Remedy

Perhaps the most significant contribution of the judgment lies in its sociological critique of matrimonial litigation. The Court used unusually candid language to describe how matrimonial disputes are increasingly litigated with vengeance rather than restraint.

It was observed that:

• Courts are being treated as arenas for score-settling.
• Evidence is sometimes manufactured or exaggerated, aided by technology.
• Criminal law is invoked prematurely, destroying chances of reconciliation.
• The justice system becomes choked by repetitive and retaliatory litigation.

The Court’s remarks echo its earlier observations in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023), where multiple litigations and failed mediations were treated as evidence of marital death.

Police and Criminal Law: A Point of No Return?

A particularly important aspect of the judgment is its caution against the mechanical invocation of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. Relying on Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024), the Court emphasised that:

• Police intervention should be a last resort.
• Arrests in matrimonial disputes often mark a point of no return.
• Not every marital discord amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
• Hyper-technical or hypersensitive approaches destroy marriages irreversibly.

This is not to dilute genuine cases of abuse, but to restore proportionality and prudence in legal responses.

Mediation as a Constitutional and Institutional Necessity

The judgment strongly advocates pre-litigation mediation, counselling, and court-annexed dispute resolution. The Court observed that:

• Mediation centres exist in all districts.
• Success rates in matrimonial mediation are encouraging.
• Even post-litigation mediation has salvaged many marriages.
• Lawyers, families, and courts share a duty to encourage reconciliation early.

The Court went further to suggest that courts should prioritise mediation before calling for pleadings, especially in maintenance and domestic violence proceedings, where allegations and counter-allegations escalate hostility.

Disposal of Pending Cases: Ending the Cycle

In an unprecedented move aimed at closing the chapter completely, the Supreme Court:

• Dissolved the marriage under Article 142
• Disposed of all pending matrimonial proceedings across courts
• Barred further litigation arising from the marital relationship
• Allowed only perjury proceedings to continue, emphasising that the stream of justice cannot be polluted

This approach reflects a balancing act between finality, deterrence, and judicial integrity.

Costs and Accountability

Notably, the Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on each party, describing it as a token penalty for burdening the judicial system with excessive litigation. Though modest, the symbolic value is significant. It signals judicial intolerance towards litigation-driven marital warfare.

Key Highlight of the Decision

Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan stated:

“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.”

Broader Implications for Matrimonial Jurisprudence

This judgment has far-reaching implications:

• Reinforces mediation as the preferred first response
• Strengthens Article 142 as a safety valve for dead marriages
• Warns against the criminalisation of matrimonial discord
• Encourages holistic closure over fragmented litigation
• Calls for ethical responsibility from lawyers and families

It also invites legislative reflection on whether irretrievable breakdown should finally be incorporated as a statutory ground for divorce.

Conclusion

The judgment underscores that prolonged matrimonial litigation serves neither the parties nor the justice system. By prioritising mediation, cautioning against excessive criminalisation, and using Article 142 to bring finality to a dead marriage, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that family law must aim at resolution and dignity rather than endless adversarial conflict.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams