Why did the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to dissolve the marriage?
Court found that this was a fit case to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 as the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Pursuant to the settlement, the husband paid Rs 10 lakh, while disputes regarding jewellery and other articles were also settled.
Around December 2019, the wife sought an additional Rs 1 lakh during verbal renegotiations, taking the agreed permanent alimony to Rs 32 lakh.
Holding that the case was fit for the exercise of powers under Article 142, Court dissolved the marriage.
The Supreme Court has held that where spouses have been living separately for years, their relationship is marked by long-standing acrimony, multiple civil and criminal proceedings, and the marital bond has effectively ceased to exist, compelling them to remain married on paper serves no legitimate purpose.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dissolved the marriage between an estranged couple, set aside the Allahabad High Court's October 3, 2024 judgment refusing divorce, and directed the husband to pay the wife Rs 50 lakh as one-time permanent alimony.
Why did the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to dissolve the marriage?
Court found that this was a fit case to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 as the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It rejected the wife's objection that she wanted to pursue a contested divorce on the ground of adultery instead of obtaining a divorce through Article 142.
Background of the dispute
The parties married on April 19, 2017, according to Hindu rites. The husband is an officer in the Indian Army, while the wife is a qualified BDS doctor.
Following marital discord, the wife left the matrimonial home, alleging that the marriage had broken down because of the husband's adultery. She also initiated multiple legal proceedings, including maintenance claims.
On February 21, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which they agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent after the wife received Rs 31 lakh as permanent alimony. In return, she agreed to withdraw her domestic violence and maintenance proceedings. Pursuant to the settlement, the husband paid Rs 10 lakh, while disputes regarding jewellery and other articles were also settled.
Meanwhile, on October 26, 2019, the family court passed an ex parte order directing the husband to pay Rs 30,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125, CrPC [now Section 144, BNSS]. After learning about the order, he moved an application under Section 126, CrPC [now Section 145, BNSS] seeking its recall.
Around December 2019, the wife sought an additional Rs 1 lakh during verbal renegotiations, taking the agreed permanent alimony to Rs 32 lakh.
The parties filed the first motion for divorce by mutual consent on January 2, 2020, when the husband paid another Rs 10 lakh. However, the wife neither signed nor filed the second motion petition and stopped appearing before the family court. As a result, the family court closed the mutual consent divorce proceedings on July 1, 2023, after the statutory period of 18 months expired.
The husband later challenged the decision before the Allahabad High Court. Although the high court recorded, after interacting with the parties, that the wife wanted to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, it held that the family court had rightly dismissed the petition because she had withdrawn her consent at the second motion stage.
The high court also directed that the Rs 20 lakh already received by the wife be adjusted towards maintenance arrears payable under the Army Act from October 2019 onwards.
What did the parties argue before the Supreme Court?
Before the Supreme Court, the husband argued that the case warranted the exercise of powers under Article 142 because both parties no longer wished to live together and there was no possibility of reconciliation. He also expressed his continued willingness to pay the agreed sum of Rs 32 lakh.
The wife, appearing in person, stated that she also wanted a divorce but only through a contested proceeding on the ground of adultery.
Her counsel argued that she intended to file a petition under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of adultery and strongly opposed the grant of divorce under Article 142, contending that the husband should not be allowed to benefit from his own alleged wrong.
Supreme Court's findings on irretrievable breakdown of marriage
After examining the record and interacting with the parties, the Bench concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation.
"The parties have been living separately for over eight years. The record shows long standing acrimony between the parties and a multiplicity of civil and criminal proceedings initiated by both sides. The ties of matrimony, in every meaningful sense, have long since been severed. In such circumstances, to compel the parties to remain bound in a marriage that exists only on paper would serve no legitimate purpose," the Bench observed.
Holding that the case was fit for the exercise of powers under Article 142, Court dissolved the marriage.
Since the wife had returned the Rs 20 lakh earlier paid by the husband, the Bench held that Rs 50 lakh would be a fair, just and adequate amount as permanent alimony.
Court directed that the amount would constitute a full and final settlement of all present and future claims arising from the marriage. It also clarified that upon payment of the amount, no further maintenance claims would survive under Section 125 CrPC or the Army Act and Rules, and ordered the closure of all pending proceedings between the parties in Noida and elsewhere.
Case Title: Salil Dhawan Vs Priyanshi Ghai
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: May 27, 2026
