INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India, in N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. Through Secretary & Others, 2026 INSC 1191, decided on 3 November 2026, examined an important question concerning the recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India and the criminal consequences of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage continues to subsist under Indian law.
The Judgment addresses a situation where a Husband, after failing to obtain a divorce from an Indian court, approached a foreign court, obtained a decree of divorce and subsequently entered into a second marriage. The Court made it clear that a Foreign Divorce Decree cannot automatically be recognised in India merely because it has been passed by a competent court abroad. Its recognition must satisfy the requirements of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the principles governing recognition of foreign matrimonial Judgments.
The Court also clarified that criminal liability for Bigamy must be examined individually and cannot be imposed upon family members or the second spouse merely because of their relationship with the Husband.
BRIEF FACTS
The Husband married the Complainant, N. Geetha Prasanthi, on 18 April 2003 in Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the couple resided in Hyderabad and subsequently moved to the United Kingdom, where the Husband pursued his medical career.
Differences arose between the Parties, following which the Husband instituted divorce and custody proceedings before the Competent Court in Andhra Pradesh. However, the divorce proceedings were dismissed. Although he preferred an Appeal before the High Court, he subsequently withdrew it.
Thereafter, the Husband acquired British Citizenship on 1 February 2013 and instituted divorce proceedings before the Cambridge County Court in England. The Foreign Court granted a Divorce Decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which was made absolute on 29 January 2014. On 3 March 2014, the Husband married another woman, Geetha Inturi, in the United Kingdom.
The First Wife subsequently lodged a Criminal Complaint alleging bigamy under Section 494 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Husband’s parents and Second Wife were also implicated in the proceedings.
The Appellants approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court dismissed their Petitions. Aggrieved by this decision, they approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
The principal issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether a Foreign Divorce Decree granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage could be recognised in India when the Parties were married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the Husband could rely upon such a foreign decree to contend that his first marriage had legally dissolved and thereby avoid prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
- Whether a subsequent change in nationality and solemnisation of the second marriage outside India could exclude the applicability of Indian criminal law.
- Whether the Husband’s parents and Second Wife could be prosecuted for bigamy and criminal conspiracy in the absence of material demonstrating their active participation or knowledge.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court began by examining Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which govern the recognition and conclusiveness of Foreign Judgments in India. The Court observed that a Foreign Judgment is not automatically conclusive and must satisfy the conditions prescribed under Section 13 CPC. These include the requirement that the Judgment must have been delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction, on the merits, in accordance with principles of natural justice and without being contrary to Indian law.
Relying upon its earlier decision in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, the Court reiterated that the jurisdiction assumed by a Foreign Court and the grounds on which matrimonial relief is granted must ordinarily be consistent with the matrimonial law governing the parties. The recognised exceptions include situations where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides in the foreign forum, voluntarily and effectively submits to its jurisdiction and contests the matter on a ground available under the applicable matrimonial law or consents to the relief.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the Husband had initially approached the Indian courts for dissolution of his marriage but failed to obtain the relief. Instead of pursuing the Appeal in India, he subsequently approached the Cambridge County Court after acquiring British Citizenship. The Foreign Court granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court held that such a decree could not automatically be recognised in India. It further observed that the First Wife had raised objections to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court. Her participation in those proceedings could not, therefore, be treated as an unconditional submission to its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Husband could not rely upon the Foreign Decree to claim that his first marriage had legally dissolved under Indian matrimonial law.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Husband, having acquired British Citizenship and solemnised his second marriage in the United Kingdom, could escape prosecution under Section 494 IPC. It observed that the first marriage had been solemnised in India under Hindu rites and customs. The subsequent change in nationality and the foreign location of the second marriage could not defeat the legal consequences arising from the subsisting first marriage. The Court further rejected the argument of delay in filing the Complaint, observing that bigamy is a continuing offence.
However, the Court adopted a different approach regarding the Husband’s Parents and Second Wife. In respect of the Parents, it found no material demonstrating an agreement or active participation in the alleged conspiracy to commit bigamy. Mere knowledge of the second marriage was insufficient to establish criminal conspiracy.
Similarly, the proceedings against the Second Wife were quashed because there was no material, apart from the alleged cohabitation or marriage, demonstrating that she knowingly participated in the offence or was aware that the husband’s first marriage was still subsisting. The Court emphasised that criminal liability must be established separately against each accused.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court dismissed the Husband’s Appeal, thereby allowing the criminal proceedings against him under Section 494 IPC to continue. However, it quashed the proceedings against his Parents and Second Wife, finding insufficient material to establish their criminal involvement.
The Judgment reinforces the principle that parties married under Indian matrimonial law cannot bypass its requirements merely by approaching a foreign court and obtaining a divorce decree on a ground not recognised under the applicable Indian law. At the same time, it protects individuals from being prosecuted merely because of their familial or marital association with the principal accused.
The decision is an important reminder that recognition of foreign matrimonial decrees is governed by established principles of private international law and that the sanctity of matrimonial status cannot be defeated through jurisdictional manoeuvres. It also reiterates that criminal prosecution must be based on the individual role and conduct of each accused, rather than assumptions arising from their relationship with the principal accused.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “New Criminal Laws Explained | BNS vs IPC | BNSS vs CrPC” can be viewed at the link below: