Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. C.Parkash, Adv. Mr. Shrey Tanwar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR

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

1. Repeated filing of criminal cases by one party against the other in a matrimonial context can be considered cruelty, especially when such conduct indicates a pattern of harassment or malicious intent (!) (!) .

2. A marriage that has broken down irretrievably, with no meaningful contact or cohabitation for a long period, constitutes cruelty to both parties and is a valid ground for dissolution of marriage (!) (!) (!) .

3. The entire matrimonial relationship must be considered when assessing cruelty, including injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations, taunts, and the overall behavior of the parties, rather than focusing solely on violent acts (!) (!) .

4. Mental cruelty can arise from long-term separation, emotional distress, and persistent hostility, even in the absence of physical violence. Unilateral decisions, such as refusing to have intercourse or not having children, may also amount to cruelty (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. In cases where the marriage has been effectively broken down for a prolonged period (such as 25 years of separation), and there is no possibility or desire for reconciliation, the relationship may be deemed beyond repair, and its continuation may cause cruelty to both parties (!) (!) .

6. When a marriage has broken down irretrievably and the parties have been living separately with no prospects of reconciliation, the court may grant a decree of divorce, recognizing the relationship as having ceased to be a viable marital bond (!) (!) .

7. In divorce proceedings where the relationship has irretrievably broken down, the court may also consider awarding permanent alimony, especially if the respondent is in a position to receive such support. The amount and timing of deposit are directed by the court (!) (!) .

8. The assessment of cruelty involves a holistic review of the relationship, considering the impact of conduct on the mental and physical well-being of the spouses, rather than isolating specific acts (!) (!) .

9. The court recognizes that in long-separated marriages with no cohabitation and no children, the continuation of the marriage may serve only to perpetuate mutual cruelty, and dissolution is justified (!) .

10. The court emphasizes that cruelty can be unintentional and that the effect of conduct on the other spouse’s mental state is a critical factor in determining cruelty, rather than the intent behind the conduct (!) (!) .

These points collectively reflect the legal approach to assessing irretrievable breakdown and cruelty in matrimonial disputes, leading to the conclusion that dissolution of marriage is appropriate under such circumstances.