A Hindu husband who fails to get a divorce in India cannot escape a bigamy case by taking foreign citizenship, getting a divorce abroad on a ground Indian law does not recognise, and marrying again. The Supreme Court held so in N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 1191, decided on 3 November 2026. A UK divorce granted on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” fails the test of Section 13 of the CPC, so the husband must face trial under Section 494 IPC. The Court, however, quashed the case against his parents and his second wife for want of any overt act.
Case at a glance
- Case: N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. through Secretary & Ors., with two connected appeals
- Citation: 2026 INSC 1191
- Case numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5187, 5188 and 5189 of 2026 (from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7708, 7793 and 7812 of 2019)
- Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra (author) and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
- Date: 3 November 2026
- Result: Husband’s appeal dismissed; trial for bigamy to continue. Appeals of his parents and the second wife allowed; proceedings against them quashed.
Facts
- The couple married on 18 April 2003 at Sattenapalli, Andhra Pradesh, under Hindu rites. The husband moved to the UK in 2005 as a doctor; the wife joined him in 2006 and returned to India in 2007 for the birth of their son.
- The husband’s divorce petition in Andhra Pradesh was dismissed. He appealed to the High Court but withdrew the appeal, so the marriage continued to subsist.
- He became a British citizen on 1 February 2013 and, in August 2013, filed for divorce in the Cambridge County Court. The wife objected to that court’s jurisdiction.
- The UK court granted a decree nisi on 27 November 2013, made absolute on 29 January 2014, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
- On 3 March 2014, he married again in Norfolk, UK. In February 2016, the first wife filed a complaint under Sections 494 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.
- The police dropped the second wife from the chargesheet, but the Magistrate took cognizance against her too. The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the case against anyone, by its order of 8 July 2019.
What the Supreme Court said
1. The foreign decree fails Section 13 CPC
A foreign judgment is not conclusive if, among other things, it was given by a court without competent jurisdiction or refuses to recognise Indian law where it applies. Applying Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991), the Court said both the foreign court’s jurisdiction and the ground for divorce must accord with the law under which the parties married. Irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so the UK decree “cannot automatically be accorded recognition in India” (paras 16 to 22).
2. Matrimonial forum shopping
The husband lost in India, withdrew his appeal, then went to a foreign court after taking its citizenship. The Court, referring also to Satya v. Teja Singh (1975) and Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale (2026), held he could not rely on such a decree to claim his first marriage had ended and escape Section 494 IPC (paras 1, 22 and 23).
3. Objecting to jurisdiction is not submitting to it
The wife had objected to the UK court’s jurisdiction. Prima facie, her participation could not be treated as an unconditional submission that would bind her to the decree (para 24).
4. Foreign citizenship and a marriage abroad do not help
Relying on Section 4 IPC, the husband argued that he was a British citizen marrying in the UK. The Court rejected this: the first marriage was solemnised in India under Hindu rites, and bigamy must be judged by the subsisting marriage, not just where the second marriage took place. A later change of nationality cannot defeat the legal consequences of the subsisting marriage (para 25).
5. No quashing for delay: bigamy is a continuing offence
The two-year delay in filing the complaint was no ground to quash, since the Court treated bigamy as a continuing offence (para 26).
6. Parents: relationship is not conspiracy
The chargesheet alleged only that the parents conspired over certain property transactions and so “encouraged” the second marriage. There was no material of any agreement to commit bigamy. Following S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala (2024) and Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala (2026), mere knowledge of the second marriage is not enough without an overt act (paras 28 and 29).
7. Second wife: liability must be shown separately
Apart from her alleged cohabitation or marriage with the husband, nothing showed she knew the first marriage still subsisted or took part knowingly. The Magistrate had taken cognizance against her without reasons. Continuing the case against her would abuse the process of law (paras 30 to 32).
The Court clarified that its findings are prima facie, confined to the quashing stage, and not a final view on the merits (para 27).
The law in short
- Section 494 IPC (now Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) punishes marrying again while a spouse is living, where the second marriage is void because of it.
- Section 13 CPC lists when a foreign judgment is not conclusive, including lack of competent jurisdiction and refusal to recognise Indian law where it applies. Section 14 CPC raises a presumption of jurisdiction, which can be displaced.
- Y. Narasimha Rao test: a foreign divorce between parties married under Indian law is recognised only if the forum’s jurisdiction and the ground of divorce match the law under which they married, unless the other spouse was domiciled there, voluntarily submitted and contested, or consented.
Why it matters
- For NRI marriages: a foreign divorce on a ground unknown to the Hindu Marriage Act, obtained over the wife’s objection, may not end the marriage in Indian law. Remarrying on its strength can lead to a bigamy prosecution.
- For wives abroad: objecting to a foreign court’s jurisdiction protects your position; it is not treated as accepting the decree.
- For families: parents and second spouses cannot be roped in for bigamy just because of their relationship or knowledge. Specific overt acts must be shown.