New Delhi: A divorce granted by a foreign court on grounds not recognised under Indian matrimonial law is not valid in India and cannot shield a person from prosecution for bigamy, the Supreme Court has held.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar made the observation on Tuesday while dismissing a plea by a man seeking to quash a bigamy case filed by his first wife.
The doctor submitted that he had married his first wife in Sattenapalli, Andhra Pradesh, on 18 April 2003, according to Hindu rites and customs. After unsuccessful divorce proceedings in Andhra Pradesh in August 2013, he obtained a divorce decree from a UK court on 16 August 2013 and married his second wife there in March 2014.
His first wife subsequently filed a complaint against him under IPC Section 494 (bigamy) in February 2016.
The doctor first approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court dismissed his plea, observing that it could not conclusively determine the validity of the divorce decree granted by the foreign court.
He then approached the Supreme Court, which used the case to examine what it described as the limits of “matrimonial forum shopping” through foreign courts.
The doctor argued that Indian criminal law did not apply to him because he had acquired British citizenship in February 2013 and his second marriage had taken place in the UK. He also maintained that the UK divorce decree was valid and had dissolved his first marriage before the second marriage. He said his first wife had participated in the UK proceedings and had therefore submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction.
He further argued that the FIR had been filed almost two years after the second marriage and was motivated by harassment.
The first wife contended that since the marriage had been solemnised in India under Hindu law, it could be dissolved only in accordance with Indian matrimonial law. She argued that the UK decree was based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, a ground not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court held that foreign matrimonial decrees are not automatically enforceable in India. Their recognition depends on compliance with Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which sets out the conditions under which foreign judgments can be recognised in India) and the matrimonial law governing the parties.
The bench relied on the landmark 1991 Supreme Court judgment in Y. Narasimha Rao vs Y. Venkata Lakshmi, which established that both the jurisdiction exercised by the foreign court and the grounds for divorce must be compatible with the matrimonial law under which the parties were married.
The bench noted that “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, the ground on which the UK court had granted the divorce, was not a statutory ground for divorce available to the parties under the Hindu Marriage Act. The decree, therefore, could not automatically be recognised in India.
The Court also observed that the records showed that the first wife had specifically objected to the UK court’s jurisdiction. Her participation in the proceedings could not, therefore, be treated as unconditional submission to the foreign court.
It held that when a foreign decree does not meet Indian legal requirements, a spouse cannot rely on it to claim that the first marriage stood dissolved under Indian law and thereby escape prosecution for bigamy. The husband’s subsequent British citizenship did not alter the legal consequences of the marriage solemnised in India. Nor did the fact that the second marriage took place abroad make Indian matrimonial law irrelevant, the Court said.
It also rejected the argument that the delay in filing the FIR warranted its quashing, observing that “bigamy is a continuing offence”.
While refusing to quash the case against the doctor, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against his parents and second wife, who were also named as respondents. It held that criminal liability could not arise merely from a family relationship and that there was no material showing any agreement, active participation or overt acts by the doctor’s parents in the alleged bigamy.
The Court also found no material to establish that the second wife had knowingly participated in a plan to marry the doctor despite being aware that his first marriage remained legally subsisting. Mere cohabitation or marriage was insufficient to establish criminal liability, it added.
Giridharan Velamore is a TPSJ alum currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)
Also Read: SC questions relevance of two-child norm, says it infringes reproductive autonomy