Article 142 Divorce Despite Withheld Consent: Irretrievable Breakdown Can End a Paper Marriage with Full and Final Alimony

1. Introduction

In SALIL DHAWAN v. PRIYANSHI GHAI, 2026 INSC 577, the Supreme Court of India considered whether a marriage that had completely broken down could be dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution, even though the wife opposed such dissolution and wished to pursue a contested divorce on the ground of adultery.

The appellant-husband, an officer in the Indian Army, and the respondent-wife, a qualified dental surgeon, were married on 19 April 2017. The relationship deteriorated soon thereafter. Multiple proceedings followed, including proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 125 CrPC, Army Act maintenance provisions, and contempt proceedings.

The parties had earlier entered into a settlement for divorce by mutual consent, but the wife did not proceed with the second motion. The Family Court dismissed the mutual consent divorce petition, and the High Court upheld that decision. The husband then approached the Supreme Court.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The parties had lived separately for over eight years, there was longstanding acrimony, and several civil and criminal proceedings were pending between them. The Court found that compelling the parties to remain married would serve no legitimate purpose.

Exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court dissolved the marriage despite the wife’s opposition to an Article 142 divorce and her stated intention to file a contested divorce petition on the ground of adultery.

The Court also fixed Rs. 50,00,000 as permanent alimony, payable by the husband in two instalments of Rs. 25,00,000 each. This amount was declared to be a one-time full and final settlement of all past and future claims arising from the marriage. Upon payment, no further maintenance claims would survive under Section 125 CrPC or under the Army Act and Rules.

The Court further directed that all pending cases between the parties, including domestic violence, maintenance, enforcement, and contempt proceedings, stand closed and disposed of.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The judgment does not expressly cite any previous judicial precedent. Instead, the Supreme Court based its decision on the factual matrix, the admitted breakdown of the marital relationship, and its constitutional power under Article 142.

The absence of cited precedents is significant because the Court treated the case as an appropriate fact-specific instance for doing “complete justice”. The judgment therefore operates less as a detailed doctrinal review and more as a direct application of the Supreme Court’s extraordinary constitutional power to end a dead marriage and terminate associated litigation.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded on the following key considerations:

  • Long separation: The parties had lived separately for more than eight years.
  • No possibility of reconciliation: The Court interacted with the parties and concluded that the marital relationship had ended in every meaningful sense.
  • Multiplicity of proceedings: Several civil and criminal proceedings were pending, showing deep and continuing acrimony.
  • Marriage existing only on paper: The Court held that forcing the parties to continue such a marriage would serve no legitimate purpose.
  • Need for financial finality: Before dissolving the marriage, the Court considered it necessary to fix permanent alimony so that neither party would retain residual claims.

Although the wife opposed the grant of divorce under Article 142 and wanted to pursue a contested petition alleging adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court held that the marriage had already collapsed beyond repair. The wife’s desire to litigate fault did not prevent the Court from granting final relief where the marital bond had become purely formal.

C. Permanent Alimony and Final Settlement

The parties had earlier agreed to a settlement amount of Rs. 32,00,000. However, the Court reassessed the matter independently. Considering the earning capacity of both parties, their standard of living, the duration of marriage, the length of separation, and the wife’s future financial security, it enhanced the amount to Rs. 50,00,000.

This shows that even when parties have previously negotiated a figure, the Court may determine a higher amount if it considers that necessary to achieve fairness and finality.

D. Impact of the Judgment

The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s power to dissolve a marriage under Article 142 where the relationship has irretrievably broken down, even if one spouse does not consent to such dissolution.

Its likely impact includes:

  • It strengthens the principle that a dead marriage need not be preserved merely because one party withholds consent at the second motion stage.
  • It clarifies that the Supreme Court may grant complete relief by dissolving the marriage, fixing permanent alimony, and closing connected proceedings.
  • It discourages prolonged matrimonial litigation where reconciliation is impossible.
  • It highlights that permanent alimony must be realistic, fair, and capable of securing financial closure.

However, the judgment is rooted in Article 142, a power available only to the Supreme Court. Family Courts and High Courts cannot automatically dissolve marriages solely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown unless permitted by statute or binding precedent applicable to their jurisdiction.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 142 of the Constitution

Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice” between the parties. In matrimonial cases, this can include dissolving a marriage where ordinary legal procedures would prolong injustice.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

This means the marriage has failed completely and cannot realistically be revived. The parties may still be legally married, but the relationship has ended in substance.

Mutual Consent Divorce and Second Motion

A mutual consent divorce usually requires two stages. First, the parties file a joint petition. Later, after the statutory waiting period, they confirm their consent through a second motion. If one party withdraws consent before the second motion, the mutual consent divorce ordinarily fails.

Permanent Alimony

Permanent alimony is a final financial payment made by one spouse to the other after separation or divorce. Here, the Court fixed Rs. 50,00,000 as a full and final settlement.

Section 125 CrPC

Section 125 CrPC provides a summary remedy for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.

Section 12 of the DV Act

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allows an aggrieved woman to seek reliefs such as protection, residence, maintenance, and compensation.

Section 90(i) of the Army Act

This provision enables deductions from the salary of an Army officer for maintenance obligations in appropriate circumstances.

5. Conclusion

SALIL DHAWAN v. PRIYANSHI GHAI is an important matrimonial law decision on the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 to end a marriage that has become only a legal shell. The Court prioritized substantive reality over procedural deadlock.

The key takeaway is that where parties have lived separately for many years, reconciliation is impossible, and litigation has multiplied, the Supreme Court may dissolve the marriage despite opposition from one spouse. At the same time, it must ensure financial fairness through adequate permanent alimony and comprehensive closure of pending proceedings.