Neha Lal vs. Abhishek Kumar

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 73
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.338 OF 2025
WITH
(I.A.No.200539 of 2025 – Application under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India seeking dissolution of the marriage – filed by
petitioner-wife)
NEHA LAL … Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
ABHISHEK KUMAR … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
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,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2026.01.20
15:18:18 IST
Reason:
from Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to Family
Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The transfer is sought on the grounds
Page 1 of 34

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
Page 2 of 34

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
Page 3 of 34

Bench Judgment of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun
1
Sreenivasan .
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 ₹
1 2023 INSC 468 : (2023) 14 SCC 231
Page 4 of 34

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

Page 5 of 34

Page 6 of 34

Page 7 of 34

HIGH COURT

Page 8 of 34

8.1 A list of cases was also filed by the respondent-husband on
24.11.2025, wherein certain new cases, pending as well as disposed of,
came to light.
8.2 The details of additional cases which are pending between
the parties, as per the list filed by the respondent-husband on
24.11.2025, are extracted below:

Page 9 of 34

Page 10 of 34

8.3 The details of additional cases which are disposed of
between the parties, as per the list filed by the respondent-husband on
24.11.2025, are extracted below:

Page 11 of 34

Page 12 of 34

Page 13 of 34

Page 14 of 34

8.4 As the information regarding the number of cases filed,
disposed of and other particulars thereof was still not found to be
complete, this Court had no choice but to make a request to the
Registrars General of the concerned High Courts to verify the
information furnished by the parties before this Court, as the order
passed by this Court could not be vague or incomplete, and the idea
was to deal with all the issues between the parties and for that purpose
correct details of the cases were required.
8.5 If the list submitted by the petitioner and the respondent is
compared with the information as received from the High Court of Delhi,
the following discrepancies were noticed:
(i) Crl. M.A. No.7920 of 2019 in Crl. Rev. P. No.441
of 2019 was not found in the list provided by the parties,
however, finds mention in the list received from the High
Court of Delhi.
(ii) Crl. M.A. No.42585 of 2019 in W.P. (Crl.)
No.1025 of 2023 was not found in the list provided by the
petitioner, however, the case is mentioned in the lists
received from the respondent as well as the High Court of
Delhi.
(iii) W.P. (Crl.) No.2758 of 2024 is found in all the lists
given by petitioner, respondent and the High Court of
Page 15 of 34

Delhi. The only addition in the list received from the High
Court of Delhi is that judgment in the case has been
reserved.
(iv) Application under Section 379 read with 215
BNSS filed in MT Case No.151 of 2021 was not found in
the list provided by the petitioner, however, the case is
mentioned in the lists received from the respondent as well
as the High Court of Delhi.
(v) The petitioner in the list provided by her, has
mentioned MT Case No.151 of 2021 at three places,
namely, at serial no.7, 9 and 10. The only difference being
that at serial no.10, it is stated to be an application filed
under Section 379 read with 215 of BNSS, 2023.
In the list provided by the respondent, in MT
Case No.151 of 2021, multiple applications were filed
which are stated to be pending.
In the list received from the High Court of Delhi,
multiple applications were filed in MT Case No.151 of
2021, out of which two were disposed of whereas three are
pending.
(vi) At serial no.2 in the cases before the Family
Courts, Delhi District Courts, in the list as received from
the High Court of Delhi, case bearing MT No.609 of 2025
filed under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 is stated to be
pending before Family Court, District East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi. The same is not mentioned in the list
provided by the parties.
Page 16 of 34

(vii) Application under Section 340 of CrPC filed in
MT No.853 of 2018 was not found in the list provided by
the petitioner, however, the case is mentioned in the lists
received from the respondent as well as the High Court of
Delhi.
8.6 If the list submitted by the petitioner and the respondent is
compared with the information as received from the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, the following discrepancies were noticed:
(i) In the list provided by the respondent, reference
has been made to the case pertaining to FIR No.501 of
2013 only.
(ii) As per the information received from the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, common chargesheet is
stated to have been filed in Crime Case No.50/2013 and
FIR No.501/2013 both the aforesaid cases. In addition,
Case No.2012 of 2019 has been mentioned where the
proceedings by the High Court have been stayed.
8.7 The information which has been received after verification
from the Registrars General of both the High Courts shows that the
information, as furnished by the parties before this Court, was not
complete.
8.8 As per the information received from the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court of Delhi, the following cases
Page 17 of 34

are found to be pending between the parties before the High Courts, the
Family Courts and the District Courts:

Page 18 of 34

9. Besides the aforesaid pending cases, the details, as has
been extracted in the previous part of the judgment, show the number of
cases which were filed by both the parties against each other which
have been dismissed or disposed of.
10. The petitioner-wife has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
to dissolve the marriage between the parties by filing application under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is on the grounds of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Otherwise, under the Hindu
2
Marriage Act, 1955 , this is not a ground on which divorce can be sought
or granted.
11. In Shilpa Sailesh’s case (supra), one of the questions
considered by this Court was whether this Court can grant divorce in
exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in case of
complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The answer to the
aforesaid question was in positive. This Court considered that
irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the
2 For short “the 1955 Act”
Page 19 of 34

1955 Act, however, the same does not debar this Court to exercise the
power to dissolve a broken and shattered marriage in exercise of its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is in the interest of
the society that the marriages, as far as possible, should be maintained.
If there is failure in the efforts for reconciliation and it is found that
marriage has been wrecked beyond the scope of salvage, it is in the
interest of all concerned to recognize that fact and dissolve the marriage,
otherwise the litigation, sufferings by all the parties and the miseries may
continue. This Court held that such discretionary power can be
exercised to do complete justice. Despite opposition by the parties, this
Court can dissolve the marriage if there is no possibility of parties living
together. Continuation of formal legal relationships in such
circumstances would not be justified.
11.1 The relevant factors to be considered by this Court to form
an opinion as to whether the marriage has irretrievably broken down
have been enumerated in paragraph ‘63’ of the aforesaid judgment and
the same is extracted below:
“63. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to
be factually determined and firmly established. For this,
several factors are to be considered such as the period of
time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when the
parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made by
Page 20 of 34

the parties against each other and their family members; the
orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time,
cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and
how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by
intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the
last attempt was made, etc. The period of separation should
be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will
be a relevant factor. But these facts have to be evaluated
keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties,
including their educational qualifications, whether the parties
have any children, their age, educational qualification, and
whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in
which event how and in what manner the party seeking
divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or
the children. Question of custody and welfare of minor
children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife,
and economic rights of the children and other pending
matters, if any, are relevant considerations. We would not like
to codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which is
situation specific. Some of the factors mentioned can be
taken as illustrative, and worthy of consideration.”
( emphasis supplied )
11.2 The specific question framed with regard to exercise of
power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the answer
thereto is extracted below:
Page 21 of 34

“(iii) Whether this Court can grant divorce in exercise of
power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when
there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in
spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer?
x x x
76. This question is also answered in the affirmative, inter
alia, holding that this Court, in exercise of power under Article
142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to
dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable
breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do
“complete justice” to the parties, wherein this Court is
satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage
has completely failed and there is no possibility that the
parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal
legal relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of
equity, is required to also balance the circumstances and the
background in which the party opposing the dissolution is
placed.”
12. Prior to the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment, in
3
Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita , this Court observed that multiple court
cases between the parties and repeated failure in mediation are
testimony of marriage being broken down. Relevant extract from the
judgment is as under:
“15. The multiple Court battles between them and the
repeated failures in mediation and conciliation is at least
3 (2023) 3 SCR 552 : 2023 INSC 433
Page 22 of 34

testimony of this fact that no bond now survive between the
couple, it is indeed a marriage which has broken down
irretrievably.”
13. There are various other instances where this Court, in
exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, had
dissolved the marriage on account of irretrievable breakdown
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in those cases.
This is despite the fact that one of the spouses was not consenting to
the same.
4
(i) In Vikas Kanaujia vs. Sarita , this Court passed the
decree of divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage even though the wife was not consenting for
passing of such decree.
(ii) Prakashchandra Joshi vs. Kuntal Prakashchandra
5
Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah is a case in which the wife
had chosen not to appear before Court despite service. Still
this Court found that case to be fit for passing a decree of
divorce while proceeding the wife ex-parte .
6
(iii) In Vineet Taneja vs. Ritu Johari , despite objection by
the husband, this Court dissolved the marriage in exercise of
power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India finding
that the facts clearly suggested that to be a fit case of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
4 (2024) 7 SCR 933 : 2024 INSC 517
5 (2024) 1 SCR 697 : 2024 INSC 55
6 MANU/SCOR/93862/2024 : MA No.2009 of 2023 in SLP (C) No.3667 of 2023
Page 23 of 34

7
(iv) Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda is another such
case where this Court dissolved the marriage in exercise of
power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The
order was passed in a Transfer Petition filed by the
petitioner-wife therein. It was a case of second marriage of
both the parties.
8
(v) In Nayan Bhowmick vs. Aparna Chakraborty , this
Court dissolved the marriage in exercise of power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India finding that the parties
therein were living separately for more than two decades and
there was no sanctity left in their marriage. Grant of divorce
was not to have devastating effect on any third party, as
there was no child born from the wedlock. The proceedings
arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband.
14. The following observation made by this Court in Achin
9
Gupta vs State of Haryana & Anr which are apt for the situation are
extracted below:
“32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of
the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging
the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the
marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account
of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family
members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on
trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the
7 2024 INSC 1014
8 2025 INSC 1436
9 (2024) 6 SCR 129 : 2024 INSC 369
Page 24 of 34

wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the
Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter
reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances
of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get
destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance,
adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each
other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in
every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are
mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown
out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made
in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels
must be weighed from that point of view in determining what
constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in
view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their
character and social status. A very technical and hyper
sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very
institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main
sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such
venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second
that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be
the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role
so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The
only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling
the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal
proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each
other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and
harassment by the husband and his family members towards
the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may
Page 25 of 34

vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as
a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case
of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be
utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so
that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of
her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife
complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the
IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete
without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every
matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the
other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations,
quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day
married life, may also not amount to cruelty.”
14.1 In some of the FIRs, the allegations are also made under
Sections 377 and 376 IPC against the family members of the parties.
15. If the facts of the case in hand are examined in the light of
the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shilpa
Sailesh’s case (supra) and the other judgments referred to above, we
find that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 28.01.2012.
They 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.
Before this Court too, the matter was referred for mediation vide order
Page 26 of 34

dated 22.07.2025 and fixed for report of the Mediator on 14.10.2025.
However, on an application (I.A.No.176081 of 2025) filed by the
respondent in-person, the date of hearing was preponed as even the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the
process of mediation could not take off. As a result, there are no
chances for settlement of the dispute.
16. The parties are well qualified. The petitioner, as has been
contended by the respondent, is working in the company of her sister
and earning handsomely. The respondent is also qualified, however, he
has stated that he had resigned from the job of Engineer. The age of the
petitioner is about 38 years and the respondent is about 46 years old. As
the parties hardly stayed together there is no child born from the wedlock
though the respondent claims that petitioner had aborted a child without
his consent, however with no convincing proof.
17. Coming again to the litigation between the parties, we may
add that the details thereof have been noticed in paragraph 8 as above.
Number of cases have been disposed of whereas some are still pending.
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,
Page 27 of 34

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
Page 28 of 34

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
Page 29 of 34

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
Page 30 of 34

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.
Page 31 of 34

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.
10
The State of Odisha . The cases being:
(i) Crl. M. A. No.42585 of 2019 in W. P. (Crl.) No.1025 of
2023 (under Section 340 CrPC)
(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
2018
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
Page 32 of 34

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;
Page 33 of 34

January 20, 2026.
Page 34 of 34