Supreme Court: Foreign Divorce Decrees Must Satisfy Indian Legal Requirements
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a divorce decree granted by a foreign court cannot automatically be recognised in India when it is based on grounds that are not recognised under the matrimonial law governing the parties.
The observation came in N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. & Others, decided on November 3, 2026, by a Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised in April 2003 in Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites and customs. The couple subsequently moved to the United Kingdom, where matrimonial differences developed.
The husband initially approached an Indian court seeking dissolution of the marriage, but his divorce proceedings were dismissed. He later withdrew his appeal and initiated fresh divorce proceedings before the Cambridge County Court in England after acquiring British citizenship in February 2013.
The UK court granted a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, making the decree absolute on January 29, 2014. Subsequently, the husband married another woman in the United Kingdom on March 3, 2014.
The first wife challenged the second marriage by filing a criminal complaint alleging bigamy and criminal conspiracy under Sections 494, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Supreme Court's Observations
The Supreme Court observed that the foreign divorce decree was granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which was not a statutorily recognised ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, applicable to the parties.
The Court held that such a foreign decree could not automatically receive recognition in India and must satisfy the requirements of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Relying on the principles laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991), the Court reiterated that recognition of a foreign matrimonial decree depends upon the applicable matrimonial law, the jurisdiction of the foreign court and the circumstances in which the parties participated in or consented to the foreign proceedings.
The Court also rejected the husband's argument that his subsequent acquisition of British citizenship and the solemnisation of his second marriage abroad would protect him from bigamy proceedings in India. It observed that the allegations under Section 494 IPC could not be diluted merely because the second marriage took place outside India.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the husband under Section 494 IPC, holding that he could not rely upon a foreign divorce decree that failed to satisfy the requirements of Indian law to claim that his first marriage had been dissolved.
However, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband's parents and second wife, observing that mere knowledge of the second marriage or the relationship with the husband, without sufficient material demonstrating active participation or criminal conspiracy, was not enough to establish their criminal liability.
Legal Significance
The ruling reinforces the principle that foreign matrimonial judgments are not automatically enforceable in India. It highlights the importance of Section 13 CPC, the applicable personal law and the principles of natural justice in determining the recognition of foreign divorce decrees.
The decision also emphasises that a change in nationality or solemnisation of a second marriage abroad cannot, by itself, extinguish the legal consequences of a subsisting marriage under Indian law.