The marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites on 30.8.2007 at Chennai. The marriage did not take off from the very beginning, and the Panchayat proceeded for compromise in December, 2007. A separate house was stated to have been taken for the couple, but it still did not work out. The usual bouquet of cases were filed by the parties against each other, and the appellant ultimately filed proceedings for divorce.

The divorce proceedings were not successful at the trial level. However, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras contained a clear finding of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, while rightly opining that the power did not lay with the High Court to take that finding to its logical consequence.

On 13.5.2022, the Supreme Court noticed that the parties had lived together only for six months and had been living apart for 13 years. The Court expressed its opinion that there was little doubt that there had been a complete irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and that the Court was inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pass a decree of divorce on that ground. Since mediation had not worked out, the Court directed that the issue of financial arrangement be explored, and both parties were asked to file a list of assets and income, including the last three years' income tax returns.

The appellant filed the details of assets and ITR for the last three years. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that he had no copies of the ITR to be filed as the respondent was not doing anything for the last two years. The appellant filed additional documents showing that the respondent was and is an Assistant Professor in GITAM, Bengaluru. Attention was also drawn to the mandatory disclosure with the AICTE, which reflected the respondent working as an Assistant Professor.

The Court held that the respondent is a qualified person who has been gainfully employed. The Court further noted that the emoluments of the appellant are not large, and that the respondent would be earning more than what the appellant is earning. In view thereof, a case was not made out for any permanent alimony to the respondent.

On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce to the parties on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, with no permanent alimony required to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The appeals were disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.