The Supreme Court has held that a husband cannot rely on a UK divorce decree granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to escape prosecution for bigamy, as the ground is not recognised under the Hindu law under which he was married in India. The Court sustained the bigamy case against the husband but quashed the criminal proceedings against his parents and his second wife.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar opened the judgment by framing the question before it: “Can the sanctity of matrimonial status be allowed to yield to such forum non conveniens?”
Background
Dr. N. Sridhar Reddy married N. Geetha Prasanthi on April 18, 2003, at Sattenapalli, Andhra Pradesh, according to Hindu rites. He moved to the United Kingdom in 2005, and his wife joined him in 2006. She returned to India in 2007 for the birth of their son.
As the relationship deteriorated, the husband filed for divorce before a court in Guntur District, which was dismissed. He appealed to the High Court but later withdrew the appeal, so the marriage continued to subsist.
After acquiring UK citizenship in February 2013, he filed for divorce before the Cambridge County Court, where the wife objected to the court’s jurisdiction. The decree was made absolute on January 29, 2014, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. On March 3, 2014, he married Geetha Inturi in Norfolk.
In 2016, the first wife lodged a complaint under Sections 494 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. The second wife’s name was deleted from the chargesheet, but the Magistrate took cognizance against her as well. The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the proceedings, leading to the appeals.
Arguments
Counsel for the husband argued that he was a British citizen when he remarried abroad, so under Section 4 of the IPC the Code did not apply. They contended that the UK decree was valid and presumed so under Section 14 of the CPC, that the wife had submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction, and that the complaint was delayed.
The parents argued that no overt act was attributed to them, while the second wife claimed she was unaware of the first marriage.
The first wife argued that a marriage solemnised in India could be dissolved only under Hindu law, that she had objected to the UK court’s jurisdiction, and that irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, relying on Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Satya v. Teja Singh.
Supreme Court on Foreign Divorce and Bigamy
Applying Section 13 of the CPC and Y. Narasimha Rao, the Court held the decree could not automatically be recognised in India. It observed: “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.”
The Court also referred to its recent ruling in Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale. It found that the wife’s participation in the UK proceedings, after raising a jurisdictional objection, could not at this stage be equated with unconditional submission to that court.
Rejecting the Section 4 IPC plea, the Court held that “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.” It added that a later change of nationality cannot defeat the legal consequences of a subsisting marriage.
On delay, the Court noted that bigamy is a continuing offence. It clarified that its conclusions were confined to the limited scrutiny permissible at this stage.
Parents and Second Wife
The Court found no material showing any agreement between the parents and the husband to commit bigamy. Relying on Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala and S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala, it held: “even if accused Nos.2 and 3 were aware about the existence of second marriage, that itself cannot make them liable for conspiracy to commit bigamy.”
As for the second wife, the Court noted that the Magistrate had taken cognizance against her without assigning any reason, and that no overt act showed she knew the first marriage was subsisting. It held that “criminal liability must be established qua each accused separately” and that continuing the case against her would be an abuse of process.
Outcome
The husband’s appeal was dismissed and the bigamy proceedings against him were sustained. The appeals of the parents and the second wife were allowed and the proceedings against them quashed.
Case Title: N. Sridhar Reddy v. The State of A.P. through Secretary and Others
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5187 of 2026 (with Criminal Appeal Nos. 5188 and 5189 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Date: November 3, 2026
