In a significant ruling concerning marital breakdown, the Supreme Court of India has dissolved the marriage of an Army officer and a doctor, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. A division bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that since the marriage had irretrievably broken down with no scope for reconciliation, forcing the parties to remain bound would serve no legitimate purpose. The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order which had dismissed the husband’s appeal, and granted a decree of divorce subject to the husband paying a final, comprehensive permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Furthermore, the bench ordered the closure and disposal of all civil and criminal proceedings pending between the parties across different forums to bring absolute finality to their legal disputes.
Background of the Case
The appellant-husband, an officer in the Indian Army, married the respondent-wife, a qualified doctor holding a Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S.) degree, on April 19, 2017, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Following marital discord, the respondent-wife moved out of the matrimonial home, attributing the breakdown of the marriage to the appellant-husband’s alleged adultery.
Thereafter, multiple legal actions were initiated by both sides. On April 30, 2018, the respondent-wife made an application to the Army Authorities seeking monthly maintenance under Section 90(i) of the Army Act, 1950, which resulted in salary deductions from the appellant-husband until September 2019. On October 1, 2018, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) alleging mental and physical harassment. She also filed a criminal complaint at the Mahila Thana, P.S. Noida, on November 24, 2018. Additionally, on November 29, 2019, she instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 447/2018 before the Family Court in Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida.
During mediation proceedings before the Mahila Thana, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on February 21, 2019. They agreed to file for a mutual consent divorce in exchange for a total sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- as permanent alimony and the withdrawal of the domestic violence and maintenance proceedings. Under this settlement, the appellant-husband paid an initial instalment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and returned all jewellery and other items to the respondent-wife.
Subsequently, on October 26, 2019, the Family Court passed an ex-parte order directing the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month under Section 125 of the CrPC, prompting the appellant-husband to file a recall application under Section 126 of the CrPC. Around December 2019, the parties verbally renegotiated the settlement, revising the total permanent alimony to Rs. 32,00,000/- after the respondent-wife requested an additional Rs. 1,00,000/-.
On January 2, 2020, the first motion petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed, at which point the appellant-husband paid a second instalment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the respondent-wife later ceased to appear and did not sign or file the second motion. Consequently, the Family Court disposed of the proceedings on July 1, 2023, due to the expiry of the statutory 18-month period.
The appellant-husband filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad (First Appeal No. 930/2024). On October 3, 2024, the High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s order, noting that the respondent-wife had withdrawn her consent before the second motion. The High Court directed that the Rs. 20,00,000/- already received by the respondent-wife be adjusted against maintenance arrears due to her under the Army Act from October 2019 onwards, and instructed her to seek a recall of the Section 125 CrPC proceedings. Aggrieved by this, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the appellant-husband argued that the case was fit for exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, as both parties agreed they did not wish to live together. The appellant-husband highlighted that even during personal interactions with the Court, the respondent-wife expressed her desire for a divorce, although she wanted it through a contested petition. The appellant-husband’s counsel reiterated the husband’s willingness to pay the agreed-upon Rs. 32,00,000/- as permanent alimony, stating it aligned with his financial capacity and the respondent-wife’s needs.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondent-wife opposed the grant of divorce under Article 142. It was argued that the respondent-wife intended to file a petition for contested divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) on the ground of adultery. The respondent-wife contended that the husband should not be allowed to benefit from his own alleged wrongs.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the history of the separation, noting that the parties had been living apart for over eight years, with a multiplicity of civil and criminal cases pending. Upon interacting with the parties, the Court observed:
“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 whatsoever.”
The bench emphasized that the matrimonial bond had effectively been severed and that keeping the parties legally bound was futile. The Court observed:
“In such circumstances, to compel the parties to remain bound in a marriage that exists only on paper would serve no legitimate purpose.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage. It also concluded that fixing a final alimony sum was crucial:
“We also 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.”
The Court added:
“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.”
To facilitate a clean break, the Court took note of previous monetary exchanges. Pursuant to a prior Supreme Court order dated March 18, 2026, the respondent-wife had returned the Rs. 20,00,000/- she had received under the failed settlement, paying it back to the appellant-husband in two demand drafts of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on April 6, 2026, and April 20, 2026.
In determining the revised alimony, the Court weighed various factors including the earning capacity of both individuals, their standard of living, the duration of the marriage, the years of separation, and the respondent-wife’s future financial security. The Court concluded that the previously discussed Rs. 32,00,000/- was insufficient and determined that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- would be a fair, just, and adequate amount.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, subject to the appellant-husband paying a total permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/-. This amount is to be paid in two equal instalments:
- The first instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- on or before June 15, 2026.
- The second instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- on or before September 15, 2026.
The Court clarified that this amount serves as a one-time, full, and final settlement, extinguishing all past and future maintenance claims under Section 125 of the CrPC, the Army Act, or any other rules.
Additionally, the Court ordered the immediate closure of all pending cases between the parties, listing several specific proceedings, including:
- Complaint No. 413/2018 (with amendment application dated November 20, 2024) under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida.
- Crl. Misc. No. 447/18 filed under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida, along with Application No. 718 of 2023 under Section 128 CrPC.
- Contempt Case No. 87/2023 and Case No. 175/2023 arising from Divorce Petition No. 07/2020.
The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the respective courts for formal closure and to draw up a decree of divorce upon receiving proof of the payment of the fixed alimony.
Case Title: Salil Dhawan v. Priyanshi Ghai
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 971 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: May 27, 2026
