Foreign Divorce Decree On 'Irretrievable Breakdown' Invalid Under Section 13 CPC; Cannot Shield Spouse From Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC: Supreme Court

"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." The Supreme Court held that a foreign decree of divorce granted on grounds not statutorily recognized under applicable Indian personal law cannot be recognized under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, nor can it shield an individual from criminal prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar ruled on November 03, 2026.

The appellant husband and the complainant wife were married in Andhra Pradesh in 2003 under Hindu rites, after which the husband moved to the United Kingdom and acquired British citizenship. Following the dismissal of his divorce petition by an Indian civil court, the husband approached the Cambridge County Court in England and obtained a divorce decree on the sole ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, subsequently marrying another woman in the UK. The first wife thereafter lodged a criminal complaint under Sections 494, 120B, and 34 of the IPC against the husband, his parents, and the second wife, which the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to quash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether a divorce decree granted by a foreign court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is entitled to recognition in India under Section 13 of the CPC and whether the husband can utilize such decree to escape penal liability under Section 494 of the IPC.

Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 494 and 120B of the IPC can be sustained against the parents and the second wife in the absence of active participation, overt acts, or conscious knowledge of a subsisting marriage.

Foreign Matrimonial Decrees Must Strictly Conform To Section 13 CPC

The Court underscored that recognition of foreign judgments in India is governed by Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC, which function as an extension of res judicata anchored in comity of nations and public policy. Reaffirming the landmark precedent in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, the bench noted that a foreign court's jurisdiction and grounds for relief must strictly conform to the personal matrimonial law governing the parties.

"The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married," the bench reiterated, observing that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Foreign Decree Granted On Non-Statutory Grounds Cannot Extinguish Subsisting Marriage

Addressing the appellant's reliance on the decree from the Cambridge County Court, the bench observed that the husband had forum-shopped after failing to obtain relief before Indian courts. The bench pointed out that a foreign decree founded on a ground alien to the governing matrimonial statutes violates Section 13 of the CPC and cannot be recognized.

"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," the Court observed.

Change Of Nationality And Foreign Solemnisation Do Not Defeat Section 494 IPC

The Court rejected the husband's contention that acquiring British citizenship and solemnizing the second marriage outside India ousted the extraterritorial application of the IPC under Section 4. The bench held that bigamy cannot be evaluated solely by the geographical locus of the subsequent nuptials but is fundamentally tied to the subsistence of the original lawful union.

"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 bench held.

Bigamy Is A Continuing Offence And Cannot Be Quashed Over Delay

The bench discarded the plea that the criminal complaint was liable to be quashed due to an alleged two-year delay in lodging the FIR. The Court observed that bigamy constitutes a continuing offence, where the infraction recurs on every occasion the unlawful status persists.

"Submission on behalf of accused No.1/husband that criminal proceedings qua him are liable to be interdicted on the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be accepted at this stage considering that bigamy is a continuing offence," the judgment noted.

In-Laws Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 494 IPC Without Evidence Of Overt Acts

Turning to the husband's parents, the Court found no material in the chargesheet demonstrating their active participation, common agreement, or overt facilitation of the second marriage. Citing S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala and Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala, the Court emphasized that familial relation or mere knowledge of a second marriage cannot give rise to liability for criminal conspiracy.

"Even proceeding on the basis that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any material, to suggest that they actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of that marriage," the bench observed.

Criminal Liability For Second Wife Requires Conscious Knowledge Of Subsisting Union

Regarding the second wife, the bench observed that the police had originally closed the case against her, but the Magistrate took cognizance without assigning reasons. The Court noted that in the absence of evidence demonstrating that she possessed conscious knowledge of the subsisting first marriage, criminal liability could not be vicariously foisted upon her.

"Apart from accused No.4’s alleged cohabitation or marriage with accused No.1, no other overt act demonstrates that she participated in the alleged commission of the offence knowingly or even had the conscious knowledge that the first marriage of accused No.1 was still subsisting. In our view, criminal liability must be established qua each accused separately," the bench ruled.

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the husband, thereby sustaining the prosecution under Section 494 of the IPC before the trial court. However, the Court allowed the appeals preferred by the parents and the second wife, quashing the pending criminal proceedings against them to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Date of Decision: November 03, 2026