Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR Mr. Kapil Chandna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Utkarsh Thapar, Adv. Mr. Nipun Joshi, Adv. Ms. Amrita Panda, AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Verma, Adv. Mr. Atul Mangala, Adv. Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv. Dr. Varnit Sharma, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19th February 2018, but they cohabited only for 80 days in the USA before separating (!) (!) .

2. The parties have been living separately since May 2018, with the respondent residing in India and the appellant primarily in the USA (!) (!) .

3. Multiple legal cases have been filed by both parties against each other across various jurisdictions, indicating ongoing disputes and a strained relationship (!) (!) (!) .

4. The appellant alleges continuous domestic abuse by the respondent, which led to police reports and criminal proceedings in the USA, and claims the respondent was vindictive and harbored malicious intent (!) (!) .

5. The appellant’s passport was impounded in 2018 due to the cases filed against him, and this impoundment was later found to be illegal because it was done without proper opportunity for the appellant to be heard (!) (!) (!) .

6. The appellant was unable to appear before the court in India due to the passport impoundment, which was beyond his control, rendering the initiation of extradition proceedings unlawful (!) (!) .

7. The proceedings against the appellant, including the extradition order, are liable to be quashed because they were based on a procedure that violated principles of natural justice (!) (!) .

8. The marriage is deemed to have irretrievably broken down, with no prospects of reconciliation, given the short duration of cohabitation, prolonged separation, and ongoing litigations (!) (!) .

9. The court exercised its discretion under constitutional provisions to dissolve the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, considering the long-standing separation, absence of love or affection, and the lack of any child from the marriage (!) (!) .

10. The respondent is employed and earning Rs. 50,000 per month, while the appellant claims to have earned Rs. 8 lakh per month in 2018 but is currently unemployed (!) .

11. A lump sum alimony of Rs. 25 lakh has been awarded to the respondent, considering her standard of living during the marriage, the period of separation, and the financial circumstances of both parties (!) .

12. The court directed the appellant to pay the alimony amount within two months, and upon failure, the amount would be returned to the appellant (!) (!) .

13. The court ordered the release of the appellant’s passport within a week, as the earlier impoundment was found to be illegal and in violation of natural justice principles (!) (!) .

14. All pending criminal, civil, and domestic cases between the parties and their family members are to be closed following the dissolution of the marriage (!) .

15. The appeal and pending applications are disposed of, with the orders to be implemented accordingly (!) (!) .