Permanent Alimony Set at ₹50 Lakhs: Supreme Court Resolves Marital Dispute
Salil Dhawan vs Priyanshi Ghai
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot deny a divorce merely because one party wishes to contest it.
• Permanent alimony must reflect the financial capacities and needs of both parties.
• Article 142 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to dissolve marriages in cases of irretrievable breakdown.
• Settlement agreements can be revisited if one party fails to fulfill their obligations.
• Alimony settlements must ensure no further claims arise post-payment.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a complex marital dispute in the case of Salil Dhawan vs Priyanshi Ghai, culminating in a significant ruling regarding permanent alimony. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage and set the alimony amount at ₹50 lakhs, reflecting the financial realities of both parties involved. This judgment not only resolves the immediate conflict but also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues of marital discord and financial settlements.
Case Background
The case arose from a marriage solemnized on April 19, 2017, between Salil Dhawan, an officer in the Indian Army, and Priyanshi Ghai, a qualified doctor. The couple faced significant marital discord, leading to the respondent-wife moving out of the matrimonial home and alleging adultery against the appellant-husband. Following a series of legal actions, including maintenance applications and domestic violence complaints, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in February 2019, which stipulated that they would file for divorce by mutual consent upon the payment of ₹31 lakhs to the respondent-wife.
However, the divorce proceedings did not progress as planned. The respondent-wife renegotiated the settlement terms, leading to an increase in the total alimony to ₹32 lakhs. Despite the initial agreement, the respondent-wife failed to file the second motion for divorce, prompting the Family Court to dispose of the mutual consent divorce proceedings in July 2023 due to the expiration of the statutory period.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The High Court of Allahabad upheld the Family Court's decision to dismiss the divorce petition, stating that the respondent-wife had not maintained her consent for the divorce. The High Court noted that the respondent-wife expressed a desire to dissolve the marriage but did not agree to the terms of mutual consent. Instead, she indicated her intention to pursue a contested divorce on the grounds of adultery. The High Court directed that the ₹20 lakhs already received by the respondent-wife be adjusted against her maintenance arrears under the Army Act.
The Court's Reasoning
Upon hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court recognized the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, noting that the parties had been living separately for over eight years and had engaged in numerous legal proceedings against each other. The Court emphasized that compelling the parties to remain married would serve no legitimate purpose, as the ties of matrimony had long since been severed.
The Court acknowledged the respondent-wife's opposition to the divorce but found that the circumstances warranted the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of finality in legal disputes and the need to resolve outstanding claims between the parties. The Court determined that a comprehensive sum for permanent alimony was necessary to ensure that neither party would have residual claims against the other.
Statutory Interpretation
The ruling involved the interpretation of various statutes, including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the provisions of the Army Act, 1950. The Court's decision to set the alimony amount at ₹50 lakhs was influenced by the financial capacities of both parties, their standard of living, and the duration of the marriage. The Court aimed to ensure that the alimony amount provided adequate financial security for the respondent-wife while also being fair to the appellant-husband.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the principle that a marriage can be dissolved even if one party does not consent, provided that the court finds sufficient grounds for doing so. Secondly, it clarifies the approach to determining permanent alimony, emphasizing that it should reflect the financial realities of both parties and provide closure to ongoing disputes. The ruling also illustrates the Supreme Court's willingness to intervene in matrimonial matters to ensure justice and equity, particularly in cases of irretrievable breakdown.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court ultimately dissolved the marriage between Salil Dhawan and Priyanshi Ghai, ordering the appellant-husband to pay ₹50 lakhs in permanent alimony, to be paid in two installments. This decision not only resolves the immediate conflict but also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues of marital discord and financial settlements.
Case Details
- Citation: 2026 INSC 577
- Court: In The Supreme Court Of India
- Bench: VIKRAM NATH, J. & SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
- Date of Judgment: May 27, 2026