In N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 5187-5189 of 2026, 2026 INSC 1191, decided 3 November 2026), the Supreme Court — Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar, JJ. — declined to quash a bigamy prosecution against a husband who had obtained a divorce from a UK court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and remarried in England, after taking British citizenship. Applying the Y. Narasimha Rao line under Section 13 of the CPC, the Court held the foreign decree could not be recognised in India: irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the wife’s conditional appearance under protest was not submission to the foreign court’s jurisdiction. The prosecutions of the husband’s parents and of the second wife, however, were quashed.
The case in one view
| Case | N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P., Crl. Appeals 5187-5189/2026 (2026 INSC 1191) |
|---|---|
| Bench | Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar, JJ., Supreme Court of India |
| Decided | 3 November 2026 |
| Provisions | Sections 494, 120B IPC; Sections 13 and 14, CPC; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 |
| Outcome | Husband’s appeal dismissed; proceedings against parents and second wife quashed |
The background
The parties married in Andhra Pradesh in April 2003 under Hindu rites. The husband settled in the United Kingdom; his attempts at divorce and custody in Indian courts failed, and he withdrew his appeal. He became a British citizen in February 2013, then obtained a decree from the Cambridge County Court — nisi in November 2013, absolute in January 2014 — on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, his wife having objected to that court’s jurisdiction. Weeks later he remarried in England. The first wife lodged a complaint in 2016; the chargesheet named the husband and his parents, with the second wife added at cognizance. The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash, and the matter travelled to the Supreme Court through special leave.
Recognition: the Narasimha Rao discipline
The Court’s matrimonial analysis follows the classic private-international-law framework of Y. Narasimha Rao, Satya v. Teja Singh and Kishorekumar Mohan Kale. A foreign decree must satisfy Section 13 CPC; for parties married under the Hindu Marriage Act, the foreign court’s decree must ordinarily rest on a ground the HMA recognises, and the respondent must have submitted to that forum. Irretrievable breakdown is not an HMA ground, and the wife’s appearance under jurisdictional protest did not amount to submission.
From the judgment: “Such a decree cannot automatically be accorded recognition in India.” And on the citizenship argument: “legal consequences flowing from the subsisting marriage cannot be defeated by a subsequent change in the nationality”.
With the first marriage subsisting in Indian law, the second marriage grounded a prima facie Section 494 case. The territorial objection — that the second marriage took place abroad — failed because the subsisting marriage was solemnised in India, and the Court treated bigamy as a continuing offence in answering the delay plea.
Individual liability: the co-accused go free
The appeals of the parents and the second wife succeeded. Conspiracy and abetment need an agreement or overt act, and the record showed none against the parents; the second wife could not be prosecuted absent prima facie material that she knew of the subsisting marriage. The result tracks the Court’s consistent reluctance, visible in S. Nitheen and related authority, to let Section 494 complaints sweep in the groom’s family wholesale.
What the decision means in practice
The wider frame
Three decades after Y. Narasimha Rao, the transnational Hindu marriage remains governed by the same rule: the law under which a marriage is solemnised controls its dissolution, and forum-shopping through emigration and naturalisation does not loosen that grip. As cross-border matrimonial litigation grows through Delhi’s courts — recognition suits, maintenance claims, Section 494 complaints — this judgment supplies a current, authoritative restatement, along with a measured limit on the criminal process’s reach into the wider family.
Frequently Asked Questions
When is a foreign divorce decree valid in India?
A foreign matrimonial decree must clear Section 13 of the CPC and, following Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, must ordinarily be founded on a ground available under the matrimonial law governing the parties — for Hindus married in India, the Hindu Marriage Act. A decree on irretrievable breakdown, a ground the HMA does not provide, from a forum whose jurisdiction the respondent contested, is not entitled to recognition.
Does acquiring foreign citizenship change the position?
No. The Court held that the legal consequences flowing from the subsisting Indian marriage cannot be defeated by a subsequent change in nationality. The first marriage, solemnised in India under Hindu rites, continued to subsist in the eyes of Indian law notwithstanding the husband's British citizenship and the UK decree.
Why were the parents and the second wife let off?
Because criminal liability is individual. For the conspiracy and abetment allegations against the parents, no overt act or agreement was shown; for the second wife, there was no prima facie material that she knew of the subsisting first marriage. Following the settled approach to Section 494 prosecutions of relatives, the proceedings against all three were quashed.
Where can bigamy be prosecuted if the second marriage happened abroad?
The Court rejected the argument that the offence is confined to the place of the second marriage. Since the subsisting marriage was solemnised in India, the prosecution in India was maintainable, and the Court treated the delay objection on the footing that bigamy is a continuing offence.