Supreme Court Dissolves Eight-Year-Old Marriage Under Article 142, Fixes Rs 50 Lakh Permanent Alimony

A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dissolved a marriage of over eight years under Article 142, overriding the wife's objection and fixing Rs 50 lakh as full and final alimony.

The Supreme Court has dissolved the marriage between an Indian Army officer and a dental surgeon under Article 142 of the Constitution, even though the wife opposed the grant of divorce and wished instead to pursue a contested petition on the ground of adultery. A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, deciding a civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 971 of 2025, found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down after more than eight years of separation and a multiplicity of civil and criminal proceedings. The Court fixed Rs 50,00,000 as permanent alimony — a full and final settlement of all past and future claims — and directed closure of every pending proceeding between the parties.

How the Dispute Reached the Court

The marriage between Salil Dhawan and Priyanshi Ghai was solemnised on 19 April 2017 under Hindu rites. The husband is an officer in the Indian Army; the wife holds a Bachelor of Dental Surgery degree. The wife moved out of the matrimonial home owing to marital discord, attributing the breakdown to the husband's alleged adultery.

From April 2018 onwards, the wife initiated a series of proceedings. She applied before the Army Authorities for monthly maintenance under Section 90(i) of the Army Act, 1950, resulting in deductions from the husband's salary until September 2019. On 1 October 2018, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budha Nagar. On 24 November 2018, she lodged a criminal complaint at the Mahila Thana, Noida. On 29 November 2019, she instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar, registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 447/2018.

The parties were called for mediation by the Mahila Thana and on 21 February 2019 entered into a Settlement Agreement. Both agreed to file for divorce by mutual consent upon the wife receiving Rs 31,00,000 in total. The husband paid Rs 10,00,000 at that stage, and claims relating to jewellery and other articles were settled. Around December 2019, the wife verbally renegotiated the terms, seeking an additional Rs 1,00,000, which the husband agreed to, revising the total permanent alimony to Rs 32,00,000.

On 2 January 2020, the first motion petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed, and the husband paid a second instalment of Rs 10,00,000. The wife, however, neither signed nor filed the second motion petition and ceased appearing before the Family Court. The Family Court, by order dated 1 July 2023, disposed of the mutual consent divorce proceedings on account of the expiry of the statutory eighteen-month period.

The husband appealed to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court, in its order dated 3 October 2024 in First Appeal No. 930/2024, recorded that the wife wished to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent but held that the Family Court had correctly rejected the divorce petition because the wife had not maintained her consent at the stage of the second motion. The High Court directed that the Rs 20,00,000 already received by the wife be adjusted against maintenance arrears due under the Army Act from October 2019 onwards, and directed the wife to seek recall of the Section 125 CrPC proceedings. The husband then approached the Supreme Court.

The Wife's Objection and the Husband's Prayer

Before the Supreme Court, the husband's counsel submitted that both parties were agreed they did not wish to cohabit. The wife had appeared in person and stated she wished to be divorced, but through a contested petition on the ground of adultery. The husband had consistently expressed willingness to pay Rs 32,00,000 as permanent alimony and sought a decree of divorce and closure of all pending litigation under Article 142.

The wife's counsel opposed the grant of divorce under Article 142, submitting that the wife intended to file a petition under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of adultery. It was argued that the husband could not be permitted to take advantage of his own alleged wrongs.

Why the Court Invoked Article 142

The Court acknowledged that the wife was not agreeable to divorce under Article 142 and intended to pursue a contested petition on adultery. It nonetheless found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down with no possibility of reconciliation. The parties had been living separately for over eight years. The record showed long-standing acrimony and a multiplicity of civil and criminal proceedings initiated by both sides.

The Court held that <“to compel the parties to remain bound in a marriage that exists only on paper would serve no legitimate purpose.” It was satisfied that this was an appropriate case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142.

Fixing Permanent Alimony at Rs 50 Lakh

Before dissolving the marriage, the Court considered it necessary to fix a final and comprehensive sum of permanent alimony to bring genuine finality to the litigation and ensure neither party retained any residual claim against the other.

The parties had themselves agreed upon Rs 32,00,000 as total permanent alimony at the time of the settlement and the first motion. Of that amount, Rs 20,00,000 had already been paid to the wife. By an order dated 18 March 2026, the Court recorded the wife's willingness to return that sum. On 6 April 2026, the wife's counsel handed over a demand draft of Rs 10,00,000 in favour of the husband in open Court. On 20 April 2026, the balance Rs 10,00,000 was similarly handed over. The entire Rs 20,00,000 was thus repaid to the husband.

The husband was agreeable to paying Rs 32,00,000. The Court, however, considered the earning capacity of both parties, their respective standards of living, the duration of the marriage, the years of separation, and the wife's need for financial security going forward. It concluded that Rs 50,00,000 would be a fair, just and adequate amount. The Court made clear that upon payment of this amount, no further claims for maintenance would survive, whether under Section 125 CrPC or the Army Act and Rules.

Closure of All Pending Proceedings

The Court directed that all cases pending between the parties stand closed and disposed of, with no further steps to be taken by either party. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the respective courts for formal orders of closure. The proceedings listed for closure include:

• Complaint No. 413/2018 (with amendment application dated 20 November 2024) under Section 12 of the DV Act, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida.
• Crl. Misc. No. 447/18 (Priyanshi Ghai v. Major Salil Dhawan) under Section 125 CrPC, pending before the Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida, along with Application No. 718 of 2023 under Section 128 CrPC.
• Case No. 87/2023 in Divorce Petition No. 07/2020, filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• Case No. 175/2023 in Divorce Petition No. 07/2020, filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Order

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage between the parties, subject to payment of permanent alimony of Rs 50,00,000 in two equal instalments: Rs 25,00,000 on or before 15 June 2026, and Rs 25,00,000 on or before 15 September 2026. The Registry was directed to draw up a decree of divorce upon receipt of proof of payment. The civil appeal stands disposed of accordingly.