Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv.(AC) Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.(AC) Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Adv. Ms. Ankita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shrirang Varma, Adv. Ms.Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. (AC), Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Adv. Mr. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyotika Kalra, AOR
For the Petitioner(s)/ Respondent(s): Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. for M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, AOR Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Pachandra, AOR

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized without specific case law references:

1. The Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve marriage by mutual consent based on the settlement between parties, and it is not bound by procedural requirements such as moving a second motion, especially in cases of exceptional hardship where continued litigation causes undue suffering (!) (!) .

2. The Court’s power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution allows it to do ‘complete justice’ in any cause or matter, including dissolving marriages on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even if such grounds are not explicitly provided in the statutory law (!) (!) (!) .

3. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) must be guided by objective criteria, evaluating the factual matrix of each case, and should aim to prevent prolonged litigation and associated suffering, balancing statutory provisions with the need for equitable relief (!) (!) .

4. The Court’s power under Article 142(1) is not an inherent or unlimited power but is curative and must be exercised within the bounds of public policy, fundamental rights, and statutory law, ensuring that relief does not violate substantive legal provisions (!) (!) .

5. The Court can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage through its power under Article 142(1), provided it is satisfied that the marriage has broken down completely and beyond repair, considering factors such as duration of separation, attempts at reconciliation, and the circumstances of the parties (!) (!) .

6. The Court’s discretion to dissolve marriage on the basis of irretrievable breakdown is not a matter of right but requires careful, cautious exercise, ensuring that the marriage is indeed unworkable and beyond salvage, with a thorough factual and contextual evaluation (!) (!) .

7. The Court can also quash or set aside other legal proceedings, including criminal cases and proceedings under related statutes, if such actions are necessary to do complete justice and are based on the settlement between the parties (!) (!) .

8. Parties are not permitted to directly seek dissolution of marriage through writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution; instead, they must approach the appropriate judicial forum or appellate authority (!) .

9. The Court’s power to do complete justice under Article 142(1) is broad but must be exercised with restraint, taking into account statutory provisions and public policy, and should not override substantive law unless necessary to prevent injustice (!) .

10. The Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142(1) includes the ability to grant divorce even when one spouse opposes, provided the Court is convinced that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and continuation would be unjust (!) .

11. The Court emphasizes that the procedural requirements for divorce, such as the waiting period between motions, can be waived in exceptional circumstances where continued litigation causes significant hardship and the marriage is clearly beyond repair (!) .

12. The Court recognizes that the primary objective in divorce proceedings is to achieve a fair and equitable resolution, prioritizing the end of suffering and the recognition of the marriage’s breakdown over strict procedural adherence (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal questions related to this document.