Supreme Court: Foreign divorce decree won't shield husband from bigamy prosecution

The case concerns whether a foreign divorce decree obtained by a husband in the UK, which dissolved a marriage originally solemnized in India, is valid in India to shield him from criminal prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Dr. N. Sridhar Reddy (husband), Geetha Inturi (second wife), Nallapareddy Krishna Reddy and Nallapareddy Vasantha Kumari (parents of the husband). Respondent: The State of A.P. (through Secretary and others) and N. Geetha Prasanthi (first wife). Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

What the court decided

• The Court framed two issues: (1) whether the foreign divorce decree is entitled to recognition in India under Section 13 of the CPC and if not, whether it shields the husband from liability under Section 494 IPC; and (2) whether the High Court could have exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings.
• The Court analyzed the statutory framework of Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC regarding the recognition of foreign judgments.
• The Court noted that a foreign matrimonial decree must be tested against Section 13 CPC, the law governing the marriage, and jurisdictional principles.
• The Court cited the precedent 'Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi' to establish that the jurisdiction and grounds of a foreign court must align with the matrimonial law under which the parties were married.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
• The Court noted that the husband had previously withdrawn an appeal in Indian courts regarding the first marriage, leaving it subsisting under Indian law.
• The first wife had filed objections to the jurisdiction of the UK court, contrary to the husband's claim that she conceded jurisdiction.