Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Dead Marriage: Continuing a marriage that exists only on paper serves no legitimate purpose

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In Salil Dhawan v. Priyanshi Ghai (Civil Appeal No. [To Be Allocated] of 2026, arising out of SLP (C) No. 971 of 2025, decided on May 27, 2026), the Supreme Court of India exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a dead marriage that had irretrievably broken down. The appellant (an Indian Army officer) and the respondent (a qualified dentist) had been entangled in structural marital discord and a multiplicity of legal battles for over eight years.

Despite the wife’s opposition to a summary divorce—as she intended to pursue a contested divorce on the ground of adultery—the Supreme Court ruled that continuing a marriage that exists only on paper serves no legitimate purpose when all emotional ties have long been severed. To provide ultimate finality and ensure the wife’s long-term financial security, the Apex Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 and enhanced the global permanent alimony to Rs. 50,000,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), completely quashing all separate pending civil, criminal, maintenance, and domestic violence proceedings between the parties.

1. Factual Matrix and Path of Litigation

  • The Background: The marriage between the appellant (Major Salil Dhawan) and the respondent (Dr. Priyanshi Ghai) was solemnized according to Hindu rites on April 19, 2017. Due to severe marital discord rooted in the wife’s allegations of adultery against the husband, the respondent moved out of the matrimonial home shortly thereafter.
  • The Legal Overlaps: The separation triggered a barrage of legal proceedings initiated by the wife:
    • April 2018: Application to Army Authorities under Section 90(i) of the Army Act, 1950, leading to source deductions from the husband’s salary.
    • October 2018: A domestic violence complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
    • November 2018: A criminal complaint at the Mahila Thana, Noida.
    • November 2019: Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, resulting in an ex-parte monthly maintenance order of Rs. 30,000/-.
  • The Failed Settlement: During mediation at the Mahila Thana, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement on February 21, 2019, agreeing to file for divorce by mutual consent in exchange for a total permanent alimony of Rs. 31,00,000/- (later verbally renegotiated to Rs. 32,00,000/-). The husband paid Rs. 20,00,000/- across two installments. However, after the first motion was filed on January 2, 2020, the wife completely stopped appearing and refused to sign the second motion. Consequently, the Family Court dismissed the mutual consent petition upon the expiration of the statutory 18-month window.
  • High Court Intervention: The Allahabad High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that consent must be mutually maintained at the second motion stage. It directed that the Rs. 20,00,000/- already pocketed by the wife be adjusted against historical army maintenance arrears. Aggrieved, the husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

2. Key Legal Issues & Court’s Observations

A. Dissolution of Marriage Under Article 142 Despite Lack of Mutual Consent

The primary legal obstacle was the wife’s staunch opposition to a summary divorce decree under Article 142, as she sought to independently establish the husband’s adultery through a contested petition under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court overrode this objection based on systemic ground realities:

  • Irretrievable Breakdown: Justice Vikram Nath observed that the marriage was dead both emotionally and practically. The parties had been separated for over eight years, shared a long-standing history of bitter acrimony, and were trapped in a web of multiple civil and criminal actions.
  • Paper Monogamy Denied: The Court established that compelling two individuals to stay legally bound to a non-functional marriage that exists only on paper serves no legislative or social purpose. Thus, the factual matrix made it a textbook case for invoking the Court’s extraordinary power under Article 142 to administer absolute justice and break the deadlock.

B. Restructuring Financial Security and Alimony Metrics

To grant absolute finality, the Court required a total resolution of all past, present, and future financial liabilities:

  • The Refund: During the Supreme Court proceedings in March and April 2026, the wife returned the initial settlement sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- back to the husband via demand drafts in open Court, completely resetting the financial baseline.
  • Adequacy Test: While the husband expressed a willingness to stick to the original settlement baseline of Rs. 32,00,000/-, the Supreme Court conducted an independent evaluation of several critical factors. Assessing the husband’s earning capacity as an active military officer, the wife’s professional status, their standard of living, the long years of isolation, and her need for robust future financial security, the Court enhanced the global permanent alimony to a lump-sum amount of 50,00,000/-. This payment effectively wipes out all concurrent maintenance survival claims under the Army Act or Section 125 of the CrPC.

3. Final Directions and Operational Decrees

The Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeal with the following absolute mandates:

  • Dissolution of Marriage: The marriage solemnized between Salil Dhawan and Priyanshi Ghai on April 19, 2017, stands officially dissolved by a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution.
  • Alimony Payment Schedule: The appellant-husband must pay the total permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- in two equal installments:
    1. First Installment (Rs. 25,00,000/-): On or before June 15, 2026.
    2. Second Installment (Rs. 25,00,000/-): On or before September 15, 2026.
  • Absolute Closure of Pending Litigation: All cross-cases and auxiliary proceedings pending before various subordinate courts stand completely closed and disposed of. This explicitly includes:
    1. The domestic violence complaint (Complaint No. 413/2018) before the Judicial Magistrate, Noida.
    2. The Section 125 CrPC maintenance suit (Crl. Misc. No. 447/18) and its execution application before the Family Court, Noida.
    3. Both connected contempt petitions (Case No. 87/2023 and Case No. 175/2023).

Decree Issuance: The Registry is directed to formalize and draw up the final decree of divorce immediately upon the submission of proof showing total compliance with the alimony schedule. All connected pending applications were closed with no order as to costs.

2026 INSC 577

Salil Dhawan  V. Priyanshi Ghai (D.O.J. 27.05.2026)

2026 INSC 577 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Admissibility of Deceased Witness Testimony Against Absconding Accused

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal, ruling that the deposition of a deceased witness recorded in an earlier trial is admissible in a subsequent trial against an absconding accused, provided the requirements of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are met. The Court clarified that the provision serves to preserve evidence when an accused deliberately absconds, preventing them from benefiting from the unavailability of material witnesses due to the passage of time. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had denied the admission of the victim’s testimony, confirming that the statutory preconditions—the accused absconding and no immediate prospect of arrest—were satisfied at the time the witness deposed.

  • Background: In a 2012 gang-rape case, the respondent and another accused were absconding while three others were tried and convicted. The victim, a key witness, testified in the first trial but passed away in 2015. After the respondent was arrested in 2016, the prosecution sought to admit the victim’s earlier deposition as evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 299 of the CrPC.
  • High Court Order: The High Court of Calcutta had rejected the application, observing that the prosecution had a duty to obtain a specific direction from the Trial Court to record evidence against the absconder during the first trial, and thus the earlier deposition could not be used against the respondent.
  • Interpretation of Section 299 CrPC: The Supreme Court held that Section 299 CrPC acts as an exception to the general rule requiring a witness to be examined in the presence of the accused. It does not mandate a formal, prior order from a Magistrate to record that the accused is absconding; rather, what is relevant is whether the conditions—that the accused is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arrest—were established at the time the evidence was recorded.
  • Preventing Misuse of Process: The Court reasoned that taking a restrictive view of Section 299 would jeopardize the criminal justice system by incentivizing accused persons to wilfully abscond and await the death or unavailability of material witnesses.
  • Application to Facts: The Court noted that the respondent was a declared absconder when the victim’s testimony was recorded (2013), and he remained at large until his arrest in 2016. As the two essential conditions of Section 299(1) were met, the deceased victim’s evidence is admissible in the trial against the respondent.

Legislative Continuity: The Court noted that the legislature has maintained this principle in Section 335 of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reinforcing the intent to ensure evidence is preserved against those who evade trial.

2026 INSC 718

The State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 718 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Insolvency and Bankruptcy: Finality of Resolution Plans and Extinguishment of Sub-judice Claims

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Appellant-SRA), ruling that upon the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), all claims—including those pending adjudication (sub-judice)—that are not specifically provided for in the plan stand extinguished. The Court held that the “clean slate” doctrine is fundamental to the IBC, preventing unresolved or contingent claims from resurfacing and undermining the revival of the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the civil suit and arbitration proceedings initiated by operational creditors, affirming that they are bound by the terms of the approved Resolution Plan.

  • Background: The Appellant-SRA challenged Bombay High Court orders that allowed a civil recovery suit and arbitration proceedings to continue against the corporate debtor (Bhushan Steel Limited) despite the approval of its Resolution Plan. The respondents, operational creditors, sought to pursue claims that were pending at the time of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
  • Treatment of Claims: During the CIRP, the Resolution Professional admitted the respondents’ disputed claims at a notional value of Rupee One (1) each. The approved Resolution Plan stipulated that because the liquidation value was NIL, no amounts were due to operational creditors; however, a settlement fund was provided for those with admitted claims.
  • The “Clean Slate” Doctrine: The Court emphasized that a successful resolution applicant must start on a “clean slate,” free from “hydra-headed” surprise claims. Once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, and claims not incorporated therein are deemed extinguished, withdrawn, or abated.
  • Finality of the Plan: The Court noted that the Final List of Creditors attained finality, and the respondents could not seek to reopen or question the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors after the plan’s approval. The Court found no merit in the allegations of fraud, noting that no proceedings had been initiated under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules to challenge the plan’s integrity.
  • No Express Carve-out: Upon a harmonious reading of the Resolution Plan, the Court concluded there was no express “carve-out” protecting sub-judice claims from extinguishment. The plan explicitly mandated that all legal proceedings relating to the period prior to the effective date stand extinguished, except to the extent of the specific settlement amount provided.
  • Observation on MSMEs: In an “Afterword,” the Court observed that the current insolvency framework does not adequately account for the position of small operational creditors and MSMEs, who are often placed at the bottom of the repayment waterfall. The Court suggested that the Legislature and Law Commission examine this to ensure a more balanced repayment mechanism.
  • Outcome: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the contrary High Court orders, and dismissed the pending civil suit and arbitration proceedings, enforcing the finality of the Resolution Plan.

2026 INSC 717

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 717 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Excluding Nominated Members from Local Authority Elections

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to exclude nominated members of Town Panchayats from participating in Legislative Council elections for Local Authorities’ Constituencies. The Court ruled that under the constitutional framework established by the 74th Amendment (Part IX-A), nominated members, who serve only in an advisory capacity, lack the democratic mandate of elected representatives. Consequently, their inclusion in the electoral roll was declared unconstitutional, and the Court affirmed the direction to conduct a recount of votes after segregating the invalid votes cast by these nominated members.

  • Background: The election to the Karnataka Legislative Council (Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency) was challenged because 12 nominated members from four Town Panchayats were included in the electoral roll and participated in the voting. The appellant, who won by a narrow margin of 6 votes, contended that the electoral roll’s finality should be respected.
  • Constitutional Interpretation: The Court held that while Article 171(3)(a) mentions “members” of local authorities, this must be interpreted through the lens of the 74th Constitutional Amendment. Article 243-R establishes that while nominated members may be appointed for their expertise, they are expressly barred from voting in municipal meetings, underscoring their advisory rather than representative role.
  • Democratic Representation: The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing nominated members to vote in Legislative Council elections would undermine the democratic nature of the electoral process, as they are not democratically elected. The Court affirmed that “members” in the context of electoral colleges refers to democratically elected representatives.
  • Finality of Electoral Rolls: While acknowledging the principle that electoral rolls typically attain finality, the Court distinguished this case by noting that the inclusion of the nominated members was void ab initio and unconstitutional. Therefore, the finality of the roll could not be used to validate an illegality that strikes at the core of the electoral college’s composition.
  • Secrecy of the Ballot: The Court rejected the argument that segregating these votes would violate the secrecy of the ballot. It maintained that the higher constitutional goal of preserving free and fair elections and ensuring the purity of the electoral process outweighs the requirement for absolute secrecy in this specific context.
  • Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s orders. The Court directed the authorities to proceed with the consequential actions based on the recount results already obtained, ensuring that the election outcome reflects only the valid votes cast by elected representatives.

2026 INSC 716

Pranesh M.K. v. Shanthegowda & Ors. – (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

2026 INSC 716 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Railway: Establishing Liability in Untoward Railway Incidents

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that when a passenger dies in an “untoward incident” (falling from a running train), the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically negate the status of a bona fide passenger. Emphasizing the “no-fault liability” principle under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Court ruled that once the claimant establishes the foundational facts through an affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways. Technical lapses and the inability to recover personal belongings should not defeat the humanitarian and welfare objectives of the legislation.

  • Background: The appellant filed a claim for compensation following the death of her husband, who fell from a running train while traveling from Raipur to Ahmedabad. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court previously rejected the claim, citing a lack of proof regarding the deceased being a bona fide passenger (specifically due to the missing ticket).
  • Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): The Court reiterated that Section 124A of the 1989 Act is a beneficial, “no-fault” provision. It is designed to provide expeditious relief to victims of untoward incidents without requiring proof of negligence by the Railway Administration.
  • Burden of Proof: Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, the Court clarified that:
    • The mere absence of a ticket does not disprove that a person was a bona fide
    • The initial burden is on the claimant, which is sufficiently discharged by filing an affidavit stating the facts.
    • Once this is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim based on attending circumstances.
  • Operational Concerns: The Court highlighted the critical issue of chronic overcrowding in Indian Railways. It noted that while the Railway Manuals contain detailed safety and ticketing protocols, the execution often fails. The Court suggested that Railways should increase manpower to better manage safety and ticketing, which could simultaneously reduce such tragedies and provide employment.
  • Constitutional Perspective: The Court observed that using terms like “second class passenger” is outdated and potentially offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India; it suggested that class designations should refer to the “coach” rather than the “passenger.”

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgments. It ordered the Railways to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 to the appellant within four weeks, failing which the amount would attract interest at 8% from the date of the original claim filing.

2026 INSC 715

Lata v. Union of India & Anr. – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 715 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins