The Supreme Court has dissolved the marriage of a doctor couple due to an irretrievable breakdown of their relationship. Over the past 22 years, they lived together for only 43 days, and their actions have irreparably damaged their matrimonial bond.

The division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, who heard the case, also decided against awarding permanent alimony, citing that both parties are qualified medical professionals with equal and sufficient earnings.

"The marriage has ceased to exist both in substance and in reality. The relation has even taken a sour taste as the families of parties have also developed rivalries. The act of respondent-wife to lodge a missing complaint against appellant after the delivery of impugned order is also indicative of the bitter relation between the parties," the bench said.

In response to the husband's plea, the Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court's 2019 judgment, which had previously allowed the wife's appeal and nullified the 2006 divorce decree granted by the Family Court in Meerut. Considering the facts and hearing both parties, the bench deemed it appropriate to use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The court referenced the Constitution Bench's decision in *Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan* (2023), which affirmed that the Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown to ensure ‘complete justice,’ even if one spouse objects to the dissolution.

"In the present case we are convinced that the marriage has failed completely and there is no possibility of parties living together and thus the continuation of further legal relationship is unjustified," the bench said.

The court observed that the husband and wife had voluntarily lived together for only 23 days since their marriage. Additionally, they cohabited for another 20 days from June 15, 2005, to July 5, 2015, during a period of court-ordered conciliation by the Sessions Court.

"Thus, in total the parties have not lived together for more than 43 days. The respondent left her matrimonial house within the first month of marriage. The period of separation has been more than 22 years. The possibility of parties living together is further reduced as parties are in their early 50s now and have built independent lives," the bench felt. 

The court also noted that the parties have been entangled in numerous legal disputes since 2002, with a total of six cases filed against each other, including criminal charges. The respondent-wife had previously filed a criminal case against the appellant and his family members, leading to their arrest, though they were later discharged and acquitted.

Despite the respondent-wife's claim of a willingness to reconcile and uphold the sanctity of marriage, the court found that her actions contradicted this assertion.

"In this long period of 22 years, there was no one to stop her from living together with the Appellant. The mediation and conciliation proceedings have failed," the bench said. 

The appellant-man contended that the respondent-wife’s claim of willingness to live together was a false representation intended to mislead the court, delay proceedings, and harass him.

The bench also referred to Rajib Kumar Roy vs. Sushmita Saha (2023), where the court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage between parties who had been living separately for 12 years. Ultimately, the court granted the appeal, overturning the High Court's order.