After Indian Divorce Bid Failed, Husband’s UK Decree on Irretrievable Breakdown Can’t Shield Him From Bigamy Trial: Supreme Court

The husband married the complainant in India under Hindu rites in 2003. After their relationship deteriorated, he unsuccessfully sought divorce in India; the marriage therefore continued to subsist under Indian law.

After becoming a British citizen, he obtained a divorce decree from a UK court in 2014 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, and married the second wife in the UK shortly thereafter.

The first wife complained of bigamy under Sections 494 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Although the investigating agency excluded the second wife from the charge-sheet, the Magistrate took cognizance against her; the husband, his parents, and the second wife sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The High Court dismissed their petitions, and they appealed.

Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), govern recognition of foreign judgments: a foreign judgment is conclusive only if it satisfies the requirements of Section 13, while Section 14 creates a rebuttable presumption of jurisdiction.

Under Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, a foreign matrimonial decree is generally recognisable only where the foreign court’s jurisdiction and the ground for relief accord with the matrimonial law governing the parties, subject to stated exceptions such as voluntary and effective submission to jurisdiction.

Satya v. Teja Singh likewise cautions against recognising foreign matrimonial decrees inconsistent with Indian law and public policy.

Section 494 IPC concerns marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse while the earlier marriage subsists; a charge of conspiracy requires material indicating an agreement or active participation, not mere knowledge or relationship. Section 482 CrPC empowers courts to prevent abuse of process, but proceedings should not be quashed where the material against an accused is insufficiently assessed at that stage.

The Court also relied on S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala and Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala for the requirement of evidence of an overt act or active participation to implicate relatives in bigamy.

The UK decree rested on irretrievable breakdown, a ground not available under the Hindu law governing the parties’ marriage; moreover, the first wife had objected to the UK court’s jurisdiction and had not thereby submitted to it.

The decree therefore could not be treated, at this stage, as dissolving the Indian marriage or shielding the husband from the Section 494 IPC prosecution.

The Court rejected the husband’s reliance on his British citizenship and the location of the second marriage, observing that the subsisting Indian marriage and the consequences flowing from it could not be defeated by a later change of nationality; it also declined to quash on the ground of delay, noting that bigamy is a continuing offence.

By contrast, the allegations against the parents did not disclose an overt act or agreement to commit bigamy, and the second wife’s alleged cohabitation or marriage, without material showing her knowledge of the subsisting first marriage or her participation in the offence, did not establish a prima facie case against her.

The Court clarified that its conclusions were confined to the scrutiny appropriate at this stage and were not a final determination on the merits.