New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a foreign divorce decree granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, to a man who was married under Hindu rites in India, cannot shield him from prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar on 3 November 2026 (2026 INSC 1191) sustained the proceedings against the husband, while quashing them against his parents and his second wife.
The appellants in this case challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order dated 08.07.2019, which refused to quash C.C. No. 571/2018 pending before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.
The husband married on 18.04.2003 at Sattenapalli under Hindu rites. He moved to the United Kingdom in 2005, and she joined him in 2006. After she returned to India for delivery in 2007, relations deteriorated. His divorce and custody proceedings at Narasaraopet were dismissed, and he withdrew his appeal in the High Court, so that the marriage continued to subsist.
After receiving British citizenship on 01.02.2013, he filed for divorce before the Cambridge County Court, which passed a decree nisi on 27.11.2013 and made the divorce absolute on 29.01.2014 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. He married the second wife in Norfolk, UK, on 03.03.2014. The first wife lodged a complaint on 01.02.2016 at Sattenapalli Town Police Station under Sections 494 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.
The husband argued that Section 4 IPC bars prosecution of a foreign citizen for acts abroad, that the UK decree is valid and presumed so under Section 14 CPC, that the first wife submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction, and that the FIR was delayed. The first wife argued that a marriage solemnised in India can be dissolved only under Hindu matrimonial law, that she had only objected to the foreign court’s jurisdiction, and that irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She relied on Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Satya v. Teja Singh.
The Court held that a foreign matrimonial decree must pass the test of Section 13 CPC, the law governing the marriage and jurisdictional principles. Applying Y. Narasimha Rao, it held that the foreign court’s jurisdiction and the grounds for relief must accord with the matrimonial law under which the parties married. Here, the husband, after failing in India, approached a foreign court, which granted divorce on a ground not statutorily recognised under the applicable Hindu law, so the decree cannot automatically be recognised in India.
The Court also referred to its recent decision in Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale (2026 SCC OnLine SC 448), which refused recognition to a foreign decree granted on the same ground in a marriage under Indian law. It held that the husband cannot rely on a decree that fails Section 13 CPC to say his first marriage stood dissolved and thereby escape Section 494 IPC. It added that the wife’s participation, where she had raised an objection to jurisdiction, cannot at this stage be equated with an unconditional submission to the foreign court.
On Section 4 IPC, the Court held that, as the first marriage was solemnised in India under Hindu rites, the allegation of bigamy is not diluted because the second marriage took place abroad, and that legal consequences of a subsisting marriage cannot be defeated by a later change of nationality. On delay, it held that it cannot be accepted at this stage as “bigamy is a continuing offence”.
As regards the parents, the Court found no overt act pointing to a conspiracy to commit bigamy. The chargesheet alleged only a conspiracy about property in the husband’s favour, which it said was not sufficient material. Even awareness of the second marriage cannot make them liable, it held, relying on Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 412) and S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala (2024), which require evidence of active participation or facilitation.
Regarding the second wife, the Court noted that the investigating agency had deleted her name from the chargesheet, but the Magistrate on 22.12.2018 took cognizance against her without assigning reasons. Apart from her alleged cohabitation or marriage with the husband, there was no overt act showing that she knowingly participated or knew the first marriage still subsisted. It held that criminal liability must be established against each accused separately, and that continuing proceedings against her would be an abuse of the process of law.
The Court clarified that its conclusions are confined to the limited scrutiny permissible at this stage and are not a final expression on the merits. It dismissed the husband’s appeal (S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7708 of 2019) and allowed the appeals of the parents and the second wife (S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7812 and 7793 of 2019), quashing the proceedings against them.
Case Title: N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. through Secretary and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 5187 of 2026 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7708 of 2019), with Criminal Appeal Nos. 5188 and 5189 of 2026
