Full Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Constitution of India seeking dissolution of the marriage – filed by petitioner-wife)
NEHA LAL … Petitioner (s)
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition was filed by the petitioner-wife praying for transfer of an application filed by respondent-husband under Section 340 CrPC bearing Misc. Crl. No.7 of 2019 in MT No.853 of 2018, seeking initiation of proceedings against petitioner for offence of perjury, from Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The transfer is sought on the grounds that the petitioner is suffering on account of number of cases pending between the parties; for the case in question, the 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 the proceedings initiated by the respondent, in most of the cases, are frivolous. 1.[1] The respondent has filed his counter affidavit denying the allegations. He has his own version of the matrimonial dispute, which has reached a stage where both the parties are into multiple litigation.
2. Some good sense prevailed, when on 22.07.2025, the parties requested for reference of dispute to the Mediation Center of this Court. The matter was directed to be listed on 14.10.2025. As is evident from I.A. No.176081 of 2025 filed by the respondent, the process of mediation probably could not even take off. On the request of the parties, the date of hearing was preponed, and the main case was directed to be listed on 18.08.2025. 2.[1] On the next date of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that an application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties. However, the same was not available on file. The order passed on that date recorded that the respondent, who appeared in-person, sought time for filing reply to the application as he had received a copy thereof. His reply was filed stating that no mutual settlement was arrived at between the parties and that there are divorce proceedings already pending before Trial courts at Delhi and Lucknow. Sum total was that the respondent did not agree to the proposal of the petitioner for grant of divorce by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
3. At the time of hearing, on 28.10.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner had handed over a note mentioning list of cases filed by the parties against each other. Some of these have been disposed of whereas some are still pending. A copy thereof was supplied to the respondent, who was present in-person in the Court.
4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 28.01.2012 and the petitioner had left the matrimonial home after 65 days of the marriage on account of cruelty inflicted by the respondent and his family members. They have been living separately for the last more than a decade. Considering the fact that both the parties have been indulging in litigations one after the other, it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in which this Court can exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and dissolve the marriage. Reliance was placed upon Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan[1].
5. On the other hand, the respondent, who appears in-person, raised strong objection to the prayer made by the petitioner. He submitted that his entire life has been ruined because of false and frivolous cases filed by the petitioner. No doubt, they stayed together for few days but the reason for the petitioner for leaving the matrimonial home is not what she claims. Immediately after she left home, she filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Karkardooma, Delhi, seeking maintenance. Most of the cases filed by her have resulted in their dismissal. It shows the conduct of the petitioner. She just wants to harass the respondent. He is just contesting various cases filed by the petitioner with no job. On account of perjury committed by the petitioner, respondent filed applications under Section 340 CrPC/Section 379 BNSS, which are pending. As there is likelihood of conviction in these cases, the petitioner to save herself, has come up with an application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking dissolution of marriage. He further submitted that the petitioner is well settled in life. She is working in the company of her sister and earning about 1,60,000/- per month. She ₹ has enough money to harass the respondent, whereas he does not have anything to pay or to even engage a lawyer. He is contesting his cases by appearing in-person.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, who appeared in-person, on the application filed by the petitioner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking dissolution of marriage.
7. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.01.2012. It is not in dispute that the parties are living separately since 02.04.2012. The reasons claimed by both the parties are different. Filing of the Transfer Petition before this Court is one part. Besides that, parties have filed number of cases against each other. The list was furnished by the counsel for the petitioner before this Court.
8. The list, as furnished in this Court, was apparently incomplete as many details were missing. The matter was directed to be listed again. On 21.11.2025, request was made to the parties to furnish complete list of cases. The details of cases, as furnished by the counsel of the petitioner-wife on 21.11.2025, are extracted below: TRIAL COURTS
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Pending │ │ Before │ │
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Date of Remarks/ │ │ Particulars of Case Filed By │ │ No. Filing Notes/Status │ │ Closed. │ │ Kindly refer Counter │ │ to TP Page No. – │ │ 66, Annexure- A1 │ │ Colly. │ │ A Complaint before Delhi │ │ Petitioner/ Petitioner has │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 02 Mahila Aayog, Near ITO 19.06.2012 │ │ Neha Lal deliberately │ │ Delhi │ │ concealed the said │ │ fact in her chart │ │ dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court. │ │ Closed. │ │ After investigation it │ │ turned out as a false │ │ complaint. │ │ Petitioner has │ │ deliberately │ │ concealed the said │ │ Police complaint before PS Petitioner/ fact in her chart │ │ 03 23.06.2012 │ │ Madhu Vihar, Delhi. Neha Lal dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court. │ │ Kindly refer Counter │ │ to Affidavit Page No. │ │ – 69, Annexure- A1 │ │ Colly. │ │ 06 Another Complaint before Petitioner/ 13.09.2012 Closed. │ │ Police at CAW CELL (East) Neha Lal Kindly refer Counter │ │ Delhi. to TP Page No.- │ │ Page 11 of 34 │ │ 151 third paragraph │ │ of the DELHI Police │ │ report. │ │ Petitioner has │ │ deliberately │ │ concealed the said │ │ fact in her chart │ │ dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court │ │ Closed. │ │ Both wife and │ │ mother-in-law has │ │ demanded Rs 10 │ │ Lakhs from me. │ │ Petitioner has │ │ Petitioner/ deliberately │ │ A complaint under Section │ │ Neha Lal and concealed the said │ │ 08 200 Cr.P.C for criminal 28.09.2012 │ │ her mother Smt. fact in her chart │ │ defamation. │ │ Prity Lal dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court. │ │ Kindly refer Counter │ │ to TP Page No. – │ │ 84, Annexure- │ │ A1Colly. │ │ Closed. │ │ Ad interim │ │ An interim Application for Petitioner/ Maintenance was │ │ 10 20.07.2012 │ │ monthly allowance. Neha Lal awarded to │ │ petitioner/ Neha Lal. │ │ 12 Execution Application Petitioner/ 21.08.2017 Closed vide order │ │ against interim Neha Lal dated 28.01.2019. │ │ maintenance order. │ │ Respondent/husban │ │ EX No. – 84/2018 d has made excess │ │ (Ex No. – 158/2017) payment of Rs │ │ 24,404/- than the │ │ claimed amount in │ │ said execution │ │ proceeding to wife. │ │ Petitioner has │ │ deliberately │ │ concealed the said │ │ fact in her chart │ │ Page 12 of 34 │ │ dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court │ │ Closed. │ │ Hon’ble Mahila │ │ Court has dismissed │ │ the said application │ │ of petitioner. │ │ Application Under Section │ │ 311 Cr.P.C in the complaint Petitioner/ │ │ 13 15.03.2024 Petitioner has │ │ of Section 12 of PWDV Act Neha Lal │ │ deliberately │ │ 2005. │ │ concealed the said │ │ fact in her chart │ │ dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court │ │ Closed. │ │ Hon’ble Mahila │ │ Court has dismissed │ │ the said application │ │ Application under Section after hearing both │ │ 319 Cr.P.C in the trial of Date is parties on merits. │ │ 498A IPC FIR Case for Petitioner/ │ │ 14 unknown to │ │ summoning of other Neha Lal Petitioner has │ │ relatives of respondent/ respondent deliberately │ │ husband. concealed the said │ │ fact in her chart │ │ dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court │ │ Closed. │ │ WP (CRL) No. – 1469/2012 │ │ It was withdrawn │ │ Respondent/ with liberty. │ │ 15 Prayed for Quashing of 10.10.2012 │ │ Abhishek Kumar Disposed of as not │ │ 498A IPC FIR before │ │ pressed. │ │ Hon’ble Delhi High Court. │ │ Closed. │ │ Criminal Revision No.- │ │ 176/2016 before Hon’ble │ │ ASJ Court, East District, On 26.12.2016 the │ │ KKD Courts Delhi. Hon’ble ASJ Court │ │ has precisely │ │ Respondent/ observed that no │ │ 17 Preferred Being dissatisfied 05.03.2016 │ │ Abhishek Kumar ground to interfere │ │ with the Impugned order of │ │ charge framing under with the impugned │ │ Sections 498A/406 IPC order and dismissed │ │ against Husband. the said criminal │ │ revision. │ │ Page 13 of 34 │ │ Closed │ │ On 13.02.2019 │ │ Hon’ble Delhi High │ │ Court has dismissed │ │ the said case │ │ CRL MC No. 440/2017 is │ │ thereafter SLP (Crl.) │ │ filed before the Hon’ble │ │ No. - 2925/2019 │ │ Delhi High Court being │ │ Respondent/ was filed. │ │ 19 aggrieved with the Hon’ble 02.02.2017 │ │ Abhishek Kumar │ │ ASJ Court revisional order │ │ Petitioner has │ │ seeking quashing of framed │ │ deliberately │ │ charges and charge sheet. │ │ concealed the said │ │ fact in her chart │ │ dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court. │ │ Closed. │ │ On 07.05.2018 │ │ Crl MC No. – 1504/2018 Hon’ble Delhi High │ │ Court has ordered │ │ respondent/husband │ │ Filed before Hon’ble Delhi │ │ Respondent/ to Pay Rs 2 Lakhs to │ │ 21 High Court in which interim 21.03.2018 │ │ Abhishek Kumar petitioner and further │ │ maintenance order of directed to conclude │ │ Hon’ble Family Court dated the trial in 125 Cr.P.C │ │ 17.07.2015was challenged. case in three months │ │ and dispose of the │ │ said application. │ │ Closed. │ │ Hon’ble Delhi High │ │ Court has asked a │ │ Status report from │ │ the Hon’ble Mahila │ │ Court thereafter │ │ disposed of the writ │ │ WP (Crl.) No. – 2067/2019 petition with │ │ directions to │ │ After dismissal of SLP (Crl.) consider/ point out │ │ No. – 2925/2019 this the contradictions in │ │ present writ petition was Respondent/ the statements of │ │ 23 24.07.2019 │ │ filed before the Hon’ble Abhishek Kumar petitioner/ Neha Lal │ │ Delhi High Court seeking and conclude the │ │ quashing of charges and Trial in six months │ │ chargesheet of Section on 17.09.2019. │ │ 498A IPC. │ │ Petitioner has │ │ deliberately │ │ concealed the said │ │ fact in her chart │ │ dated 21.11.2025 │ │ before this Hon’ble │ │ Supreme Court. │ │ Page 14 of 34 │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
BNSS East Separate Case
│ │ application District, number is not │ │ Delhi assigned. │ │ (Old Code │ │ Section Counter blast │ │ 340 case to the │ │ Cr.P.C.) respondent’s │ │ 340 Cr.P.C. │ │ application. │ │ Filed on │ │ subjective │ │ beliefs of │ │ typographical │ │ error made in │ │ daily order, │ │ without │ │ producing any │ │ Page 9 of 34 │ │ cogent │ │ evidence. │ │ Filed in MT No. │ │ – 853/2018 │ │ (2012) much │ │ earlier to the │ │ pronouncement │ │ of judgement on │ │ 07.02.2019. │ │ Separate Case │ │ number is not │ │ assigned. │ │ Filed for │ │ fabrication of │ │ financial │ │ affidavit, │ │ concealments │ │ Section Family of vital material │ │ MT No.- 340 Court, Respondent facts and │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 03. 853/2018 Cr.P.C. 31.08.2015 East / Abhishek Pending documents, and │ │ (2012) Applicatio District, Kumar false averments │ │ n Delhi on affidavit │ │ under oath. │ │ Pending │ │ adjudication │ │ since last │ │ more than a │ │ decade huge │ │ period of time. │ │ Kindly refer │ │ Counter │ │ affidavit to TP │ │ Page No.- 43, │ │ Para No.- 62 │ │ and Annexure- │ │ A14 over Page │ │ No.- 235. │ │ Filed for │ │ absolutely │ │ making several │ │ false │ │ CRL MA Hon’ble │ │ Section Respondent averments on │ │ No. – 10.12.201 Delhi Pendin │ │ 12 340 / Abhishek affidavit under │ │ 42585/201 9 High g │ │ Cr.P.C Kumar oath in reply to │ │ 9 Court │ │ the revision │ │ petition by │ │ Petitioner/Neha │ │ Lal. │ │ 15 CRL MA Section 26.09.202 Hon’ble Respondent Pendin Filed for the │ │ No. – 528 5 Delhi / Abhishek g modification of │ │ 29967/202 BNSS High Kumar order by way of │ │ 5 Court expunction/ │ │ (Old removal of the │ │ Code 482 remarks made │ │ Cr.P.C) in the order │ │ dated │ │ 01.08.2025 │ │ Page 10 of 34 │ │ passed in WP │ │ (Crl) No. – │ │ 1025/2023. │ │ Petitioner has │ │ concealed this │ │ present case. │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────�
��
18. In the application filed by the petitioner-wife under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, no claim for any alimony has been made by her. She has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in the cases which are stated to be pending in different Courts at Delhi, Allahabad, Ghaziabad and Lucknow. The details of cases, as furnished by the parties, were verified from the Courts concerned and for passing the order, we are referring and relying upon the details provided by the Courts concerned.
19. At the time of arguments, serious objections were raised by the respondent, who appeared in-person, to the prayer made in the application filed by the petitioner. He had submitted that the petitioner has spoiled his life. She had been misrepresenting facts before the Courts with a motive to mislead for which applications have been filed by him under Section 340 of CrPC/379 BNSS. He had further submitted that he does not consent to passing of decree of divorce.
20. 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.
21. They have indulged into filing 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. 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 criminal side, the chances of reunion are remote but should not be ruled out.
22. Practice of law is said to be noble profession. 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. As any matrimonial dispute has immediate effect on the fabric of the society, it is the duty of all concerned to make earnest effort to resolve the same at the earliest before the parties take strong and rigid stand. There are mediation centres in all districts where pre-litigation mediation is also possible. 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, has also started living together.
23. The problem is more after the birth of a child or children. Many a times, he/she becomes a bone of contention between the warring parties. His/her custody is another battle which starts before Court. In many cases, the orders passed by the Courts are not even complied with.
24. First and the 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. Even if a case is filed in a Court on a trivial issue such as maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 125 of 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. This sometimes becomes a point of no return specially when any of the parties is arrested, may it be even for a day.
25. 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.
26. However, from the facts noticed above, we find this to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties stayed together only for 65 days, are separated for the last more than a decade and have been indulging into litigation one after another. 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.
27. It is directed that the parties shall not indulge in further litigation with reference to their matrimonial dispute.
28. Now coming to the cases pending between the parties. All the cases pending between the parties, as mentioned in paragraph No.8.8, shall stand disposed of without any further action by them. However, the following applications filed by the parties raising plea of perjury shall continue because no one can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice, as emphasized by this Court in Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha10. The cases being:
(i) Crl. M. A. No.42585 of 2019 in W. P. (Crl.) No.1025 of
(ii) Application under Section 379 read with 215 BNSS filed in MT No.151 of 2021
(iii) Application under Section 379 read with 215 BNSS filed in MT No.151 of 2021
(iv) Misc. Crl. No.7 of 2019 filed in MT No.853 of 2018
(v) Application under Section 340 CrPC in MT No.853 of
29. It is clarified that if besides the cases mentioned in the paragraph 28, any other application(s) filed by the parties either under section 340 CrPC or under Section 379 read with 215 of BNSS, 2023, the same shall be dealt with on merits by the concerned Courts and will not be disposed of, in view of this order passed by this Court. 10 2024 INSC 46
30. A copy of the order passed by this Court shall be sent to the Courts concerned for taking action as per the direction in this order. However, if there is any other case arising out of matrimonial dispute, though not mentioned in the list, but pending, the same shall also stand disposed of on production of copy of this order by the parties.
31. No further order is required to be passed in the Transfer Petition and the same is disposed of.
32. 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.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ………………. ……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL) ……………….……………..J. (MANMOHAN) New Delhi; January 20, 2026.