Imposition of token costs on litigating parties for systemic abuse

When both parties engage in persistent, vexatious, and multi-layered litigation over a decade arising from a brief period of cohabitation, the imposition of token costs is fully justified to mark judicial disapproval. Prolonged legal battles characterized by mutual hostility and hyper-aggressive posturing cause immense strain on public institutions and waste precious court hours. Imposing financial penalties serves as a symbolic reminder to litigants that courtrooms are sacred spaces meant for resolving genuine grievances rather than platforms for endless retaliation. Even when a marriage is dissolved on equitable grounds, the systemic cost of managing dozens of cross-cases cannot be completely ignored by the bench. Directing parties to deposit costs with recognized legal aid associations reinforces professional accountability and social responsibility. Such punitive measures encourage parties to reflect upon the futility of excessive litigation and embrace peaceful closures. (Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar | 2026 INSC 73)