2026 Supreme(SC) 82

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Neha Lal – Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Kumar – Respondent
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 338 of 2025 (I.A. No. 200539 of 2025 - Application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking dissolution of the marriage - filed by petitioner-wife)
Decided On : 20-01-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – It is in interest of society that marriages, as far as possible, should be maintained – If marriage has been wrecked beyond scope of salvage, it is in interest of all concerned to recognize that fact and dissolve marriage.
(2) Matrimonial litigation – Even when a complaint is sought to be registered with police of simple matrimonial dispute, first and foremost effort has to be for re-conciliation through Mediation Centres in Courts, instead of calling parties to police stations.

Headnote:

(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – It is in interest of society that marriages, as far as possible, should be maintained – If there is failure in efforts for reconciliation and it is found that marriage has been wrecked beyond scope of salvage, it is in interest of all concerned to recognize that fact and dissolve marriage, otherwise litigation, sufferings by all parties and miseries may continue – In some of FIRs, allegations are also made under Sections 377 and 376 IPC against family members of parties – Parties have stayed together only for a period of 65 days and ever since then they are into litigation one after another – Once they are residing separately for more than a decade, there is no question of rehabilitation and cohabitation – Efforts were also made for reconciliation but failed – Parties are well qualified and there is no child born from wedlock though – In application filed by petitioner-wife under Article 142 of Constitution of India, no claim for any alimony has been made by her – She has prayed for quashing of proceedings in cases which are stated to be pending in different Courts at Delhi, Allahabad, Ghaziabad and Lucknow – Level of tolerance has gone down while level of ego has risen up – Marriage between parties dissolved by decree of divorce. (Paras 11, 14.1, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 26)

(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144 [Section 125 of Cr.P.C.] – Matrimonial litigation – Even when a complaint is sought to be registered with police of simple matrimonial dispute, first and foremost effort has to be for re-conciliation through Mediation Centres in Courts, instead of calling parties to police stations – This sometimes becomes a point of no return specially when any of parties is arrested, may it be even for a day – In changing times, matrimonial litigation has increased manifolds – Even this Court is flooded with transfer petitions, mainly filed by wives, seeking transfer of proceedings initiated by their husbands, may be at first instance or as a counter blast – In such situations, it is duty of all concerned including family members of parties to make their earnest effort to resolve disputes before any civil or criminal proceedings are launched. (Paras 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Present petition was filed by petitioner-wife praying for transfer of application filed by respondent-husband under Section 340 Cr.P.C., seeking initiation of proceedings against petitioner for offence of perjury, from Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Transfer is sought on the grounds that petitioner is suffering on account of number of cases pending between parties; for the case in question, petitioner will have to travel from Lucknow to Delhi; she is not getting any maintenance and has no place to stay at Delhi and that proceedings initiated by respondent, in most of the cases, are frivolous.

Findings of Court:

In view of the fact that the parties stayed together only for a period of 65 days and have indulged in numerous litigations for the last more than a decade apparently with a view to settle scores, in our opinion, both of them deserve to be penalised with costs, which is ? quantified at 10,000/- each, as a token amount. Let the cost be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

Result : Transfer Petition disposed of.