Evidence Fabricated Often Using AI In Matrimonial Cases; False Allegations Rampant : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the use of fabricated and AI-generated evidence in matrimonial disputes, observing that parties, driven by a desire to 'teach the other side a lesson' at any cost, are increasingly misusing technology to construct cases founded on false allegations.

“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.”, remarked a bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, while dissolving the marriage of a couple on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Court also suggested a few steps to be taken at first and foremost whenever a matrimonial dispute arises, while criticising the tendency to rush to the police in every matrimonial disagreement:

“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.”

A judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal made these observations while dissolving a marriage that had been irretrievably broken for over 13 years, during which the couple had initiated more than 40 legal proceedings against each other. The petition in the Supreme Court was filed by the wife seeking the transfer of the case registered by the husband. However, in the interregnum, the mediation option was explored, but could not be taken up. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties.

The couple had cohabited for barely 65 days after their marriage in 2012 but remained entangled in legal battles for more than a decade. Their disputes spanned divorce petitions, maintenance cases, domestic violence proceedings, criminal cases under Section 498A IPC, execution petitions, perjury applications, writ petitions, and repeated transfer pleas across multiple jurisdictions.

Headnote

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Dissolution of Marriage – Irretrievable Breakdown – Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction despite opposition by one spouse - The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage that had lasted only 65 days of cohabitation followed by over a decade of separation and excessive litigation - held that where a marriage is wrecked beyond salvage, maintaining a formal legal relationship is unjustified and the Court can exercise its power under Article 142 to do "complete justice," even if one spouse opposes the divorce.

Matrimonial Litigation – Misuse of Courts – Perjury and Costs - Supreme Court criticized the practice of warring couples treating courts as "battlefields" to settle scores, noting that the parties had filed over 40 cases against each other - While disposing of all matrimonial disputes, the Court specifically directed that applications related to perjury (Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS) must continue, as no one can be permitted to "pollute the stream of justice" - imposed a token cost of ₹10,000 on each party for choking the judicial system with numerous litigations - Supreme Court emphasized that earnest efforts should be made for pre litigation mediation and counselling - It observed that the immediate initiation of criminal proceedings often destroys any chance of reconciliation and leads to a "point of no return," especially if arrests occur. [Relied on Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231; Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana, (2024) 6 SCR 129; Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita, (2023) 3 SCR 552; Paras 11 – 15, 26-32]

Also From Judgment: 'Warring Couples Can't Make Courts Their Battlefield' : Supreme Court Flags Growing Matrimonial Litigation, Bats For Mediation

Cause Title: NEHA LAL VERSUS ABHISHEK KUMAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Click here to download judgment