Can a Foreign Divorce Decree rescue a husband from a bigamy case in India? Not when it rests on a ground unknown to Indian matrimonial law, the Supreme Court has held, refusing to quash the Section 494 IPC case against a doctor who remarried in the United Kingdom after becoming a British citizen.
New Delhi: Bigamy proceedings against a husband who married a second time in England will go on, the Supreme Court held on November 3, 2026, ruling that the Cambridge County Court divorce decree he relied on, granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, does not meet the test of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and cannot bind a wife married in India under Hindu rites. The Court quashed the proceedings against his parents and his second wife [N. Sridhar Reddy v. The State of A.P. through Secretary and Others].
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar decided three criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 5187, 5188 and 5189 of 2026) against a common order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated July 8, 2019. The judgment, reported as 2026 INSC 1191, was authored by Justice Mishra.
Why the foreign decree failed
Applying Y. Narasimha Rao, the Bench held that both the jurisdiction assumed by a foreign court and the ground on which it grants relief must accord with the matrimonial law under which the parties married. It also relied on its recent ruling in Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale, where a US decree on irretrievable breakdown was refused recognition.
“In our view, the foreign divorce decree was passed in contravention of the existing matrimonial law in India and on a ground that is not even recognized statutorily. This not only violates the legal threshold of Section 13 of the CPC, which every foreign decree has to pass through, but also the observations made by this Court in Y. Narasimha Rao (supra) as to the conditions required to be fulfilled by a foreign decree to be enforceable in India.”
Asked whether the husband could rely on such a decree to escape Section 494 IPC, the Court said “this cannot be permitted”. It added that the record of the UK proceedings did not, at this stage, show that the wife had unconditionally submitted to that court’s jurisdiction, since she had raised a jurisdictional objection.
What the two sides argued
Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, for the first wife, argued that a marriage solemnised in India under Hindu law could be dissolved only according to Hindu matrimonial law, that irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that the wife had objected to, not accepted, the foreign court’s jurisdiction. She relied on Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) and Satya v. Teja Singh (1975).
Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, for the husband, argued that he was a British citizen when he remarried abroad, so under Section 4 IPC the Code did not apply; that the UK decree was valid and presumed so under Section 14 CPC until set aside; that the wife had in fact submitted to the UK court’s jurisdiction; and that the complaint, filed two years after the remarriage, was meant to harass him. The parents said no overt act was attributed to them, and the second wife said she did not know of the first marriage.
A change of nationality is no defence
Rejecting the Section 4 IPC argument, the Bench said:
“…even if the second marriage took place outside India, the allegations under Section 494 of the IPC cannot be said to be diluted since enquiry for the offence of bigamy cannot be confined to the place of second marriage but must necessarily take into account the subsisting matrimonial relationship. Even otherwise, legal consequences flowing from the subsisting marriage cannot be defeated by a subsequent change in the nationality of accused No.1/husband.”
The Court also turned down the plea of delay in lodging the FIR, describing bigamy as a continuing offence. It clarified that its conclusions were confined to the limited scrutiny permissible at this stage and were not a final expression on the merits. The allegations against the husband remain to be tested at trial, where he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
How the case arose
The judgment opens by describing the case as one that “brings into sharp focus the limits of matrimonial forum shopping”. Dr. N. Sridhar Reddy married N. Geetha Prasanthi on April 18, 2003 at Sattenapalli in Andhra Pradesh under Hindu rites. He moved to the United Kingdom in 2005 to work as a doctor. After the relationship broke down, his divorce petition before the court at Narasaraopet, Guntur District, was dismissed, and he later withdrew his appeal before the High Court, so the marriage continued to subsist in India.
He became a British citizen by naturalisation on February 1, 2013, and filed for divorce before the Cambridge County Court in England on August 16, 2013. The wife objected to that court’s jurisdiction. A decree nisi was ordered on November 27, 2013, and made absolute on January 29, 2014, dissolving the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. On March 3, 2014, he married Geetha Inturi in Norfolk.
On February 1, 2016, the first wife lodged a complaint at Sattenapalli Town Police Station under Sections 494 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC. A charge sheet was filed against the husband and his parents. The second wife’s name was dropped by the police, but the Magistrate took cognizance against her as well on December 22, 2018. The High Court refused to quash C.C. No. 571 of 2018 pending before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.
Parents and second wife let off
The Bench found no overt act or material showing any agreement by the husband’s parents, Nallapareddy Krishna Reddy and Nallapareddy Vasantha Kumari, to commit bigamy. The charge sheet’s allegation that they conspired over property in the husband’s favour was held insufficient, and mere knowledge of the second marriage would not make them liable, following S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala and Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala.
“In our view, criminal liability must be established qua each accused separately and, thus, continuance of the criminal proceedings against accused No. 4 would result in an abuse of the process of law.”
On the second wife, the Court noted that the police had found insufficient material and dropped her from the charge sheet, and that the Magistrate had taken cognizance against her “without assigning any reason”. Apart from her alleged cohabitation or marriage with the husband, nothing showed she knew the first marriage still subsisted.
The outcome
The husband’s appeal was dismissed and the Section 494 IPC proceedings against him will continue before the Sattenapalli court. The appeals of his parents and of the second wife were allowed, and the criminal proceedings against them were quashed.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling links two strands of law: recognition of foreign matrimonial decrees under Section 13 CPC, and criminal liability for bigamy. A divorce granted abroad on a ground unavailable under the Hindu Marriage Act, against a spouse who objected to the foreign court’s jurisdiction, will not be treated as dissolving an Indian marriage, and so cannot be pleaded as a defence to a bigamy charge in India. Acquiring foreign citizenship before remarrying does not change that.
At the same time, the Court drew a firm line on collective prosecution of family members. Relatives and a second spouse cannot be put to trial on bare allegations of conspiracy or knowledge; each accused needs material showing an overt act or conscious participation.
Case Title: N. Sridhar Reddy v. The State of A.P. through Secretary and Others [Criminal Appeal No. 5187 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 7708 of 2019, with Criminal Appeal Nos. 5188 and 5189 of 2026]
Citation: 2026 INSC 1191
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan with Rashmi Nandakumar (AoR) and Yashmita Pandey for the appellants; Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash with Anuj Prakash, Prakhar Sharma, Saumya Behki, Pradum Kumar, Niraj Dubey, Anu Gupta (AoR) and Guntur Pramod Kumar (AoR) for the respondents