Supreme Court ended 65 days of marriage which resulted into 40 cases and 13 years of litigation

INTRODUCTION 

In a landmark judgment that addresses the growing trend of "matrimonial warfare," the Supreme Court of India recently brought an end to a 13-year legal battle between a couple who had lived together for only 65 days.

Facts and Background 

The marriage between the parties solemnized in January 2012. The parties only lived together for a short period of 65 days. After being separated, there were about 40 cases filed across various forums in Delhi and UP. The litigation included a barrage of civil and criminal cases, ranging from transfer petitions and maintenance claims to allegations of cruelty and perjury. Despite multiple attempts at mediation, the bitterness between the parties only intensified over the decade, leading the Court to observe that "good sense" had long been abandoned.

Observations 

Under Article 142, the Supreme Court has the "plenary power" to pass any order necessary to ensure "complete justice." In this case, the Court used this power to:

1. Grant an Immediate Divorce: Bypassing the usual requirement for mutual consent or the lengthy "fault-based" trial process.

2. Quash Pending Cases: Dissolving all matrimonial-related litigation between the parties to ensure they could not continue to harass one another through the courts.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage 

The Court recognized that when a couple has been separated for over a decade and has engaged in such intense litigation, the marriage is "dead for all intents and purposes." The Bench noted that forcing such a relationship to continue on paper serves no social or legal purpose and only chokes an already overburdened system. 

The judgment went beyond the specifics of the couple and addressed the broader issue of frivolous litigation. It was observed that the Court is not a battle ground for settling personal scores. Further, it was stated that every frivolous case delays justice for thousand genuine cases. The court even urged to take the shelter of mediation instead of going into long litigation. 

Unlike typical divorce settlements, the Court took a punitive stance to deter future abuse:

• Imposition of Costs: Both parties were ordered to pay ₹10,000 each to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association as a penalty for wasting judicial time.

• The Perjury Exception: Notably, the Court did not quash the perjury proceedings against the wife. It held that while the marriage should end, "pollution of the stream of justice" (through false affidavits or fabricated evidence) must be dealt with on its merits to maintain the integrity of the law.

Conclusion 

This judgment sets a powerful precedent: the Supreme Court will no longer act as a silent spectator while "warring couples" weaponize the law. It reinforces that while the right to seek justice is fundamental, the right to harass through litigation is non-existent.