Representational Image.
Supreme Court News: New Delhi, January 21, 2026 – The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the increasing misuse of technology in matrimonial disputes, highlighting that parties are frequently fabricating evidence, sometimes using artificial intelligence, to gain advantage in legal battles. The bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan made the observations while dissolving the marriage of a couple whose union had irretrievably broken down.
“Whenever the parties in matrimonial dispute have differences, the preparation starts as to how to teach a 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,” the Court observed, emphasizing that litigation should not become a tool for revenge.
The case, titled Neha Lal versus Abhishek Kumar, involves a couple who had cohabited for barely 65 days after their marriage in 2012 but remained locked in legal battles for over a decade. Over this period, they filed more than 40 legal proceedings against each other, spanning divorce petitions, maintenance cases, domestic violence complaints, criminal cases under Section 498A IPC, execution petitions, perjury applications, writ petitions, and repeated transfer pleas across multiple jurisdictions.
READ: Supreme Court Imposes Cost on DDA, Urges Adoption of Litigation Policy to Avoid Delays
The Supreme Court expressed concern that parties often rush to the police or courts even over trivial disputes, exacerbating conflicts rather than resolving them. The bench urged greater reliance on pre-litigation mediation and reconciliation efforts. “First and foremost, earnest effort should be made by the parties, guided by their advocates, to convince them for pre-litigation mediation. In some cases, counseling may also be required,” the Court said.
It further stressed that even when a case is filed over minor issues such as maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 125 of CrPC, 1973) or complaints under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, courts should prioritize mediation over filing formal replies, as counter-allegations often aggravate the dispute. Likewise, when a complaint is lodged with the police, initial efforts should focus on reconciliation, preferably through court-mediated channels, rather than immediate registration of cases, which may escalate conflicts irreversibly, particularly if an arrest occurs, even for a single day.
READ: Supreme Court Directs High Courts to Report on 30% Women Representation in Bar Associations
The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal system should not be treated as a battlefield for warring couples, and highlighted the value of mediation centers in districts that facilitate pre-litigation resolution. The Court noted that in many instances, disputes resolved through mediation have allowed parties to resume cohabitation or at least end conflicts amicably.
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage, recognizing that the union had irretrievably broken down. No alimony was claimed by the petitioner, and all prior claims were considered settled. The judgment also included a cautionary message about the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, underscoring that the noble practice of law should not be misused to perpetuate false allegations or fabricated evidence.
READ: Japan’s Aica Kogyo Acquires Controlling Stake in Stylam Industries in $225 Million Deal
This case underscores the judiciary’s growing concern about the intersection of technology and litigation, particularly the potential misuse of AI tools in creating misleading evidence in personal disputes. The Supreme Court’s observations highlight the need for early dispute resolution mechanisms, ethical legal practice, and responsible use of technology in courts.
Legal Representation: Petitioner(s) were represented by Advocates Anuj Prakaash, Niraj Dubey, Pradum Kumar, and Advocate-on-Record Kumar Mihir, while the respondent appeared in person.
READ: Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Advises on Ambuja Cements – Orient Cement Merger
