Foreign Divorce No Shield to Bigamy Charge: Supreme Court

Foreign Divorce on a Ground Unknown to Hindu Law Is No Shield Against Bigamy Charge: Supreme Court

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court has refused to quash a bigamy prosecution under Section 494 IPC against N. Sridhar Reddy, who remarried in the United Kingdom after the Cambridge County Court dissolved his Hindu marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, a ground not statutorily recognised under the Hindu law under which he married. Such a decree fails Section 13 CPC and cannot shield him. Proceedings against his parents and second wife, Geetha Inturi, were quashed for want of any overt act (paras 22-23, 28, 32-33).

Key holdings

A foreign matrimonial decree is recognised in India only if it passes Section 13 CPC and the Y. Narasimha Rao conditions (paras 19-20, 22).

A second marriage abroad after a change of nationality did not dilute the Section 494 allegations over an Indian marriage (para 25).

Bigamy being a continuing offence, delay in lodging the FIR was no ground for quashing at this stage (para 26).

Liability must be shown against each accused; knowledge or cohabitation alone was not enough (paras 29, 32).

The findings on the husband are prima facie, not a final word on the merits (para 27).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

N. Sridhar Reddy married the first wife by Hindu rites at Sattenapalli, Andhra Pradesh, in 2003 and moved to the United Kingdom as a doctor. His divorce petition in Guntur District was dismissed and he withdrew his appeal, so the marriage subsisted. After acquiring UK citizenship on 01.02.2013, he sued for divorce before the Cambridge County Court, where the first wife objected to its jurisdiction; the decree was made absolute on 29.01.2014. On 03.03.2014 he married Geetha Inturi in Norfolk. The first wife's complaint of 01.02.2016 led to a chargesheet against him and his parents; the Magistrate also took cognizance against the second wife. The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the case (paras 3-4).

Court's Findings

Under Sections 13 and 14 CPC a foreign judgment is conclusive only if it clears the Section 13 exceptions, and a foreign matrimonial decree must be tested on that anvil (paras 16-19). Applying Y. Narasimha Rao, requiring the jurisdiction and grounds to accord with the parties' matrimonial law, and Satya on limping marriages, the Court held that a decree on irretrievable breakdown, a ground not statutorily recognised under Hindu law, cannot automatically be recognised in India (paras 20-22). Citing Kishorekumar Mohan Kale, it held the husband cannot rely on such a decree to escape Section 494 (para 23). Prima facie, the first wife's objection to the foreign court's jurisdiction was not unconditional submission (para 24). Section 4 IPC did not help: the marriage was solemnised in India, and a later change of nationality cannot defeat its consequences (para 25). Bigamy being a continuing offence, delay was no ground at this stage (para 26). Against the parents, the chargesheet alleged only a property-related conspiracy, with no overt act or agreement; knowledge alone is insufficient (paras 28-29). Against the second wife, nothing beyond alleged cohabitation or marriage showed knowing participation (paras 31-32).

Legal Principle

A foreign divorce decree granted on a ground unavailable under the matrimonial law under which the parties married fails Section 13 CPC and cannot shield the husband from a Section 494 IPC prosecution. Relatives and a second spouse face trial only on material showing an overt act, not on relationship or knowledge alone (paras 22-23, 28-29, 32).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For spouses in cross-border marriages and their lawyers, the message is direct: a divorce decree from abroad does not end a Hindu marriage in India unless it passes Section 13 CPC, and irretrievable breakdown, a ground unknown to Hindu marriage law, will not do (paras 22-23). Remarrying on such a decree invites a Section 494 IPC trial, and delay in complaining did not help here because the Court treated bigamy as a continuing offence (para 26). Relatives named only for their relationship can seek quashing where no overt act is shown, as in Prasanta Kumar Dhar on omnibus allegations against in-laws. The trial will decide the merits (para 27).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Y. Narasimha Rao and Others v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Another (1991) 3 SCC 451
Applied Discussed at ¶ 12, 20, 22
Lays down the rule for recognising a foreign matrimonial judgment in India: the jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court and the grounds of relief must accord with the matrimonial law under which the parties married, subject to stated exceptions. Relied on by the first wife; the Court extracted it and held that the Cambridge County Court decree on irretrievable breakdown violated Section 13 CPC and these conditions.
Satya v. Teja Singh (1975) 1 SCC 120
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13, 21
Principles governing the validity of foreign decrees cannot be divorced from the law governing the parties' matrimonial status, or a ‘limping marriage’ results, and no country is bound by comity to recognise divorce laws repugnant to its own laws and public policy; extracted by the Court in support of refusing recognition.
Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale 2026 SCC OnLine SC 448
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 23
Refused recognition to a US divorce decree on irretrievable breakdown for a marriage governed by the Hindu Marriage Act where the husband had only contested jurisdiction; the Court extracted it and held that a husband relying on a decree that fails Section 13 CPC cannot escape Section 494 IPC.

View all precedents (5)

Sivaraman Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Another 2026 INSC 412 2026 INSC 412
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 29
Held, following S. Nitheen, that without evidence of active participation, facilitation or overt acts in the second marriage, in-laws cannot be made liable under Section 494 IPC and mere knowledge is insufficient; applied to quash the proceedings against the husband's parents.
S. Nitheen and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2024) 8 SCC 706
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 29
Referred to through Sivaraman Nair for the requirement that the complainant prima facie prove an overt act or omission of the accused in the second marriage ceremony.