Salil Dhawanv.Priyanshi Ghai

Legal Analysis: Salil Dhawan vs. Priyanshi Ghai

Citation: 2026 INSC 577 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Judgment Author: Justice Vikram Nath
Date of Decision: May 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 971 of 2025 against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s order rejecting the divorce petition.

Synopsis of the Judgment
The parties were married on 19.04.2017 but soon separated. The wife moved out, alleging adultery by the husband. Multiple proceedings were initiated: a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, a petition under Section 125 CrPC, and proceedings under the Army Act for maintenance. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in February 2019 for divorce by mutual consent with permanent alimony of Rs.31 lakhs (later revised to Rs.32 lakhs). The first motion was filed and the husband paid Rs.20 lakhs. However, the wife neither signed the second motion nor appeared, and the mutual consent divorce petition was dismissed for expiry of the statutory period. The Family Court rejected the husband’s divorce petition (contested). The High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, noting that the wife wished to pursue a contested divorce on the ground of adultery. The Supreme Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation. It dissolved the marriage, fixed a consolidated permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakhs (after the wife returned the earlier payments of Rs.20 lakhs), and ordered closure of all pending proceedings between the parties.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Salil Dhawan vs. Priyanshi Ghai

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 971 of 2025 (Leave granted)

• Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (Division Bench)

• Judgment Author: Justice Vikram Nath

• Date of Decision: May 27, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 577 (Reportable)

• Appeal From: Judgment and order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal No. 930 of 2024, which had dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s order dismissing the divorce petition.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142 (power of Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it).

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 13(1)(i) (divorce on ground of adultery – sought by wife), Section 13B (divorce by mutual consent – initially agreed upon), Section 23 (duty of court to attempt reconciliation).

• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 12 (complaint filed by wife).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 125 (maintenance of wives, children and parents), Section 126 (procedure for maintenance proceedings), Section 128 (enforcement of maintenance orders).

• Army Act, 1950: Section 90(i) (maintenance from serving officer – invoked by wife).

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: (proceedings initiated by wife against husband for alleged non-compliance).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• No precedents were cited by the Court. The judgment proceeds on the basis of the Court’s plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, in light of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the absence of any possibility of reconciliation.

What the Judgment is About: The judgment dissolves a marriage that had irretrievably broken down, where the parties had initially agreed to divorce by mutual consent but the wife later refused to proceed with the second motion, opting instead for a contested divorce on the ground of adultery. The Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 142, granted divorce, fixed a consolidated alimony (Rs.50 lakhs) after the wife returned the earlier payments (Rs.20 lakhs), and closed all pending litigation between the parties, including domestic violence, maintenance, and contempt proceedings.

3. Relevant Facts

• The appellant (husband) is an officer in the Indian Army. The respondent (wife) is a qualified doctor (B.D.S.).

• The marriage was solemnised on 19.04.2017 according to Hindu rites.

• Due to marital discord, the wife moved out of the matrimonial home, alleging adultery by the husband.

• On 30.04.2018, the wife applied for monthly maintenance under Section 90(i) of the Army Act. Deductions were made from the husband’s salary until September 2019.

• On 01.10.2018, the wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, alleging mental and physical harassment.

• On 24.11.2018, the wife filed a criminal complaint with the Mahila Thana, Noida.

• On 29.11.2019, the wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.

• On 21.02.2019, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement before the Mahila Thana mediation. They agreed to file for divorce by mutual consent, with the wife receiving Rs.31,00,000/- as permanent alimony. The husband paid Rs.10,00,000/- at that stage. Claims over jewellery were also settled.

• The Family Court passed an ex‑parte order on 26.10.2019 directing the husband to pay Rs.30,000/- per month under Section 125 CrPC. The husband filed an application for recall.

• Around December 2019, the wife verbally renegotiated the settlement to Rs.32,00,000/- (additional Rs.1,00,000/-), which the husband agreed to.

• On 02.01.2020, the first motion petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed. The husband paid a second instalment of Rs.10,00,000/-.

• The wife neither signed nor filed the second motion petition and stopped appearing before the Court.

• On 01.07.2023, the Family Court disposed of the mutual consent divorce proceedings because the statutory period of eighteen months had expired.

• The husband then filed a contested divorce petition, which was dismissed by the Family Court.

• The husband appealed to the High Court. The High Court, after interacting with the parties, noted that the wife wished to dissolve the marriage but only through a contested petition on the ground of adultery. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order dismissing the divorce petition.

• The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

• During the proceedings, the Court recorded the wife’s willingness to return the Rs.20,00,000/- already paid by the husband pursuant to the earlier settlement. The wife returned the entire amount in two demand drafts.

• The husband expressed his willingness to pay Rs.32,00,000/- as alimony. The Court, after considering various factors, fixed the permanent alimony at Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. Issues

1. Whether the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down, with no possibility of reconciliation, thereby justifying the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce.

2. What is the appropriate quantum of permanent alimony that would constitute a full and final settlement of all past and future claims arising from the marriage, taking into account the husband’s earning capacity, the wife’s needs, the duration of the marriage, and the years of separation.

3. Whether all pending proceedings between the parties (under the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, the Army Act, and contempt petitions) should be closed upon payment of the fixed alimony.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The marriage has irretrievably broken down, and there is no possibility of reconciliation (Para 7).

The Court noted that the parties were living separately for several years. The wife herself, during the High Court proceedings, stated that she wished to dissolve the marriage, albeit through a contested petition on the ground of adultery. The husband consistently expressed his desire to end the marriage. The Court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was no scope for reconciliation. In such circumstances, continuing a dead marriage serves no purpose and only perpetuates animosity and litigation. The Court accordingly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage.

B. Permanent alimony must be fixed as a consolidated sum to bring finality (Paras 8-11).

The Court observed that it was appropriate to fix a final and comprehensive sum of permanent alimony that would constitute a full and final settlement of all past and future claims arising from the matrimonial relationship. This would bring genuine finality to the litigation and ensure that neither party is left with any residual claim. The parties had earlier agreed on Rs.32,00,000/-. However, the wife had already returned the Rs.20,00,000/- paid by the husband (pursuant to the Court’s direction). The husband expressed willingness to pay Rs.32,00,000/-. The Court, having regard to the earning capacity of both parties, their respective standards of living, the duration of the marriage (approximately 2 years of cohabitation and several years of separation), and the wife’s need for financial security, fixed the permanent alimony at Rs.50,00,000/-. This amount was to be paid in two instalments.

C. Upon payment of the fixed alimony, all pending proceedings between the parties shall stand closed (Para 13).

The Court explicitly ordered that upon payment of the alimony, all cases pending between the parties (including the domestic violence complaint, the Section 125 maintenance proceedings, the contempt petitions, and any other proceedings) shall stand closed and disposed of. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the respective courts for passing formal orders of closure. This ensures complete finality and prevents further litigation.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Article 142 power to grant divorce despite one party’s wish for a contested trial: The judgment reiterates that where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation, the Supreme Court can grant divorce under Article 142 even if one party insists on a contested divorce on grounds such as adultery, and even if the trial court and High Court had declined divorce. The power is exercised to do complete justice and to put an end to a dead marriage.

• Consolidated permanent alimony as a tool for complete finality: The Court emphasised that fixing a consolidated sum as permanent alimony (covering all past and future claims) and linking it to the closure of all pending proceedings is an effective way to achieve finality in matrimonial litigation. The Court may, in the process, require the return of previously paid amounts to restructure the settlement.

• Return of earlier payments as a precondition for renegotiated alimony: Where earlier instalments were paid under a settlement that did not materialise, the Court may order the return of those amounts so that a fresh, comprehensive alimony can be fixed without the complication of past payments being treated as separate.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis of Concepts

• Irretrievable breakdown of marriage (Para 7): The Court did not engage in a detailed analysis of fault or who was responsible for the breakdown. It simply noted the undisputed facts: the parties had been living separately for many years; the wife had initiated multiple proceedings; the husband had also sought divorce; the wife herself expressed a desire to end the marriage (though through a contested petition). The Court concluded that there was no possibility of reconciliation. This is consistent with the well‑settled approach under Article 142: the Court looks to the objective fact of breakdown, not to which party caused it, and grants divorce to avoid compelling the parties to remain in a dead marriage.

• Quantification of alimony (Paras 9-11): The Court considered the earlier agreed amount (Rs.32 lakhs), the fact that the husband had already paid Rs.20 lakhs (which was returned), the husband’s capacity as an Army officer, and the wife’s professional qualification (B.D.S.) and her need for financial security. The Court increased the amount to Rs.50 lakhs, recognising that the wife would have to re‑establish herself. This demonstrates that the Court does not automatically accept the parties’ previous agreement but exercises an independent assessment.

• Closure of all pending proceedings (Para 13): The Court listed four specific pending proceedings (domestic violence, maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, two contempt petitions) and ordered their closure upon payment. This is a pragmatic approach to ensure that the settlement is truly final and that no further litigation arises from the same marital relationship.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a classic example of the Supreme Court using its Article 142 powers to cut through procedural deadlocks in matrimonial disputes. The marriage had clearly broken down; the parties had attempted a mutual consent divorce but the wife reneged; the courts below declined to grant a contested divorce. Without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the parties would have remained tied to a dead marriage indefinitely. By fixing a consolidated alimony and ordering closure of all proceedings, the Court brought finality and saved the parties from years of further litigation. The decision to have the wife return the earlier payments before fixing a new alimony is equitable – it avoided the complexity of adjusting past payments against future amounts.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address the wife’s allegation of adultery. She wished to pursue a contested divorce on that ground, presumably to obtain a finding of fault against the husband. By granting divorce under Article 142 without determining the adultery allegation, the Court effectively denied her that opportunity. However, the Court’s approach is consistent with the principle that the object of Article 142 is to do complete justice, not to adjudicate every factual dispute when the ultimate outcome (dissolution of marriage) is inevitable. The wife also received a significant alimony (Rs.50 lakhs), which may be considered adequate compensation. Another concern is that the Court did not provide detailed reasoning for increasing the alimony from Rs.32 lakhs (the earlier agreed amount) to Rs.50 lakhs. While the Court mentioned “earning capacity, standards of living, duration of marriage, years of separation, and need for financial security,” it did not quantify how these factors led to the specific figure. However, the exercise of discretion in alimony is inherently fact‑specific, and the figure appears reasonable given the husband’s position as an Army officer and the wife’s need to support herself.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in matrimonial appeals where the marriage has irretrievably broken down but one party resists divorce or insists on a contested trial. It reinforces the power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 to grant divorce without requiring the parties to go through the full trial process. It also provides a template for fixing consolidated alimony and ordering closure of all collateral proceedings (domestic violence, maintenance, contempt) as part of a comprehensive settlement. Family Courts and High Courts may take note that where a marriage is dead, continued insistence on a contested trial only adds to the bitterness and costs, and the higher courts can invoke their inherent powers (or the Supreme Court can invoke Article 142) to bring finality.

9. Final Outcome

• Civil Appeal: Disposed of (in effect, allowed by granting divorce).

• The marriage between the appellant-husband (Salil Dhawan) and the respondent-wife (Priyanshi Ghai) was dissolved by decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

• Permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) was fixed, payable in two instalments:
  First instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- on or before 15.06.2026.
  Second instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- on or before 15.09.2026.

• All pending proceedings between the parties (listed in para 13 of the judgment) were ordered to be closed, and no further steps were to be taken therein.

• The Registry was directed to draw up a decree of divorce upon receipt of proof of payment of the alimony.

• The wife had already returned the earlier sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (paid under the cancelled settlement) to the husband.

• No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application

• For a husband seeking divorce where the wife resists or insists on a contested trial: If you are before the Supreme Court (or High Court with analogous inherent powers) and the marriage has irretrievably broken down, you may seek exercise of Article 142 jurisdiction. You must demonstrate: (i) long separation (several years), (ii) multiple litigations between the parties, (iii) failed mediation or settlement attempts, (iv) willingness to pay a fair and consolidated alimony that secures the wife’s future. Even if the wife wishes to pursue a fault‑based divorce, the Court may still grant divorce under Article 142 to do complete justice, provided the alimony is just and proper.

• For a wife who wishes to obtain a finding of fault (e.g., adultery) against the husband: Be aware that the Supreme Court may grant divorce under Article 142 without deciding the fault ground, if the marriage is dead. To avoid this, you may need to demonstrate that a finding of fault is essential for your personal vindication or for other legal consequences (e.g., custody, reputation). However, the Court’s emphasis is on complete justice, not on adjudicating every allegation. If you are offered a substantial alimony, the Court may consider that adequate compensation.

• For a lawyer negotiating a settlement: This judgment shows that the Supreme Court is willing to fix a consolidated alimony and close all pending proceedings. When drafting a settlement, include a clause that upon payment of the agreed sum, all pending cases (domestic violence, 125 CrPC, contempt, etc.) shall be withdrawn and closed. If the parties had paid earlier instalments under a failed settlement, the Court may require the return of those amounts before fixing a fresh alimony.

• For Family Courts and High Courts: While you may not have Article 142 powers, you can encourage parties to reach a comprehensive settlement that includes a final alimony and closure of all collateral proceedings. In appropriate cases, where the marriage is dead and the parties have been separated for many years, you may consider granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown if you have the jurisdiction (the Law Commission has recommended such an amendment; until then, only the Supreme Court under Article 142 can grant divorce on this ground). This judgment may be cited to persuade higher courts to exercise their plenary powers.

11.  Court Lines

• “We are cognisant of the fact that the respondent-wife is not agreeable to the grant of divorce by this Court and intends to pursue a contested petition on the ground of adultery. Nonetheless, what is evident from the record and from our interaction with the parties is that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation.” (Para 7)

• “We find it appropriate, before dissolving the marriage, to fix a final and comprehensive sum of permanent alimony that shall constitute a full and final settlement of all past and future claims arising out of this matrimonial relationship. Such a determination is necessary to bring genuine finality to the litigation and to ensure that neither party is left with any residual claim against the other.” (Para 8)

• “Having regard to the earning capacity of both parties, their respective standards of living, the duration of the marriage, the years of separation, and the respondent-wife’s need for financial security going forward, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) would be a fair, just and adequate amount to fix as permanent alimony.” (Para 11)

• “Upon payment of this amount, no further claims for maintenance shall survive, whether under Section 125 CrPC or the Army Act and Rules.” (Para 11)

• “Accordingly, all cases pending between the parties shall stand closed and disposed of, and no further steps shall be taken therein by either party.” (Para 13)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

• For the husband (appellant) in a dead marriage: Your primary goal is to establish irretrievable breakdown. Gather evidence of long separation (years), multiple failed litigations, and the failure of mediation. Express willingness to pay a lump‑sum alimony that is fair and reasonable. If the wife insists on a contested divorce on grounds of adultery, argue that the Supreme Court under Article 142 can grant divorce without determining fault, as the continuation of a dead marriage serves no purpose. Offer to pay a consolidated amount to cover all past and future claims, and agree to closure of all pending cases. In this case, the husband paid Rs.20 lakhs earlier, then the Court directed the wife to return it, and then fixed Rs.50 lakhs as fresh alimony – this shows that the Court is willing to restructure the financial terms to achieve finality.

• For the wife (respondent) in a similar situation: If you wish to contest divorce, you must show that the marriage can be salvaged or that you have a genuine need for a fault‑based decree (e.g., for reputation, for claiming additional compensation, or for criminal proceedings). However, if the marriage is dead, the Supreme Court is likely to grant divorce under Article 142 regardless. Your better strategy is to negotiate a high alimony. The Court will consider your earning capacity (here, the wife was a B.D.S. doctor, so she had earning potential; nonetheless, the Court awarded Rs.50 lakhs). If you have received earlier payments under a failed settlement, be prepared to return them if the Court restructures the alimony. Here, the wife returned Rs.20 lakhs, which facilitated the fresh award of Rs.50 lakhs.

• For a lawyer drafting a petition before the Supreme Court in a matrimonial matter: If the marriage is dead and the lower courts have refused divorce (either because mutual consent failed or because the grounds under Section 13 were not proved), invoke Article 142 of the Constitution. Specifically plead irretrievable breakdown, long separation, multiple proceedings, and the absence of any chance of reconciliation. Offer a specific lump‑sum alimony and undertake to close all pending cases. Attach a schedule of all pending proceedings. Request the Court to pass a decree of divorce under Article 142. Cite this judgment as an example of the Court’s power to grant divorce without determining fault.

• For a High Court judge: You cannot grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown because that ground is not yet in the Hindu Marriage Act (though the Law Commission has recommended it). However, you can use this judgment to encourage the parties to settle. You may also note that the Supreme Court may, in appeal, exercise Article 142 even if you have denied divorce. Therefore, in appropriate cases, you may suggest to the parties that they approach the Supreme Court directly if they are unable to obtain a decree from the lower courts and the marriage is dead.