Facts: A wife filed a transfer petition seeking the transfer of proceedings initiated by her husband under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), alleging perjury, from Delhi to Lucknow. The wife claimed she faced hardship due to numerous pending cases, travel difficulties, lack of maintenance, and frivolous proceedings initiated by the husband. The husband denied these allegations, asserting his version of the matrimonial dispute.Procedural Posture: The case reached the Supreme Court of India as a Transfer Petition (Criminal). The Court initially directed the parties to mediation, which proved unsuccessful. The petitioner-wife sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, citing irretrievable breakdown.Issue: Can the Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown, despite opposition from one spouse and when divorce is not permissible on this ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? What factors should be considered when determining irretrievable breakdown?Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown under Article 142, even if one spouse opposes it. The Court dissolved the marriage, directing that all pending cases between the parties be disposed of, except those related to perjury.Reasoning: The Court relied on its previous judgments, including Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, to reiterate that Article 142 grants it discretionary power to do "complete justice". The Court considered the prolonged separation (over a decade), numerous litigations, and failed reconciliation attempts as evidence of irretrievable breakdown. It emphasized that continuing a formal legal relationship without the possibility of cohabitation would be unjustified. The Court also noted that the wife did not claim alimony, and her previous claims were settled. The Court directed both parties to pay costs of ₹10,000 each for abusing the court system with frivolous litigation. The Court also directed that cases related to perjury will continue, stating that "no one can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice".