Supreme Court urges mediation for warring couples in disputes

The Supreme Court stated on Tuesday that warring couples cannot treat courts as battlefields to settle scores. While dissolving a marriage of a couple who lived together for only 65 days and have been separated for over a decade, the court emphasized mediation for early resolution.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan of the Supreme Court made these observations while dissolving a marriage in a matrimonial dispute, where the couple had lived together for only 65 days before separating over a decade ago. The court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the union, citing an irretrievable breakdown.

The bench remarked, “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 the criminal side, the chances of reunion are remote but should not be ruled out.”

The court highlighted that false allegations are rampant in matrimonial cases, with evidence often collected or even fabricated, particularly in the era of artificial intelligence. Issues frequently escalate after the birth of a child, turning the child into a point of contention. It urged parties to attempt pre-litigation mediation, guided by advocates who may need counseling themselves, and to utilize mediation centers available in all districts.

Even for minor matters like maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, or Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, courts should first explore mediation rather than proceeding to replies, as counter-allegations can worsen disputes. In police complaints over simple matrimonial issues, reconciliation through court mediation centers should be prioritized over summoning parties to stations. With matrimonial litigation surging in changing times, the court stressed that all involved, including family members, must strive to resolve disputes before initiating civil or criminal proceedings. Mediation has shown encouraging success rates, with some couples reuniting post-resolution.

関連記事

A realistic illustration showing the Supreme Court of India alongside scenes of religious devotion, highlighting tensions between law and faith.
AIによって生成された画像

Supreme court questions judicial review of religious practices

AIによるレポート AIによって生成された画像

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern that frequent judicial intervention in religious matters could undermine India's civilisational identity, where faith remains deeply connected to society.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has ruled that lok adalats and district legal services authorities lack the power to grant divorce decrees. The authority to dissolve marriages rests exclusively with family courts.

AIによるレポート

India's Supreme Court indicated on Wednesday that uniform guidelines on judicial intervention in faith and rights disputes are neither feasible nor desirable, preferring case-by-case assessments. The observation came during the seventh day of hearings on the Sabarimala Temple entry reference.

Chief Justice Martha Koome has directed that personal injury claims from road accidents be moved from Small Claims Courts to Magistrates' Courts across Kenya.

AIによるレポート

The Supreme Court on June 23, 2026, told petitioners to first approach the Calcutta High Court over a West Bengal order that links Special Intensive Revision outcomes to access to subsidised ration and nutrition schemes.

このウェブサイトはCookieを使用します

サイトを改善するための分析にCookieを使用します。詳細については、プライバシーポリシーをお読みください。
拒否