When does a foreign divorce count in India? What the Supreme Court's bigamy ruling means

What did the Supreme Court decide on Tuesday?

That a UK divorce did not end an Indian marriage. N Sridhar Reddy married in India under Hindu rites, later became a British citizen, obtained a divorce from a court in the United Kingdom on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, and married again there. His first wife, who never took part in the British case, filed a bigamy complaint in Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sree Chandrashekhar dismissed his appeal on 3 November, so the case against him will now go to trial. The UK decree, the bench held, “was passed in contravention of the existing matrimonial law in India”. And on his change of passport: the “legal consequences flowing from the subsisting marriage cannot be defeated by a subsequent change in the nationality”.

Is a foreign court’s judgment binding in India at all?

Usually yes, under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but with six exceptions. The section says a foreign judgment is conclusive between the parties unless it was given by a court without jurisdiction, was not given on the merits of the case, rests on an incorrect view of international law or refuses to recognise Indian law where that law applies, was obtained in proceedings that broke the rules of natural justice, was obtained by fraud, or upholds a claim founded on a breach of Indian law. Under Section 14, an Indian court presumes the foreign court was competent, though that presumption can be challenged.

For most commercial disputes the tests are rarely a hurdle. For divorces they often are, because marriage in India is governed by personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which list their own grounds and their own courts.

What did the Narasimha Rao case add?

It turned those six tests into a working rule for divorce. Y Narasimha Rao and Y Venkata Lakshmi married at Tirupati on 27 February 1975. He moved to the United States, claimed 90 days’ residence in Missouri and obtained a divorce from a St Louis County court on 19 February 1980, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, while she objected that she did not accept that court’s jurisdiction. He married again on 2 November 1981, and she filed a bigamy complaint.

In a judgment written by Justice P B Sawant on 9 July 1991, the Supreme Court held that a foreign matrimonial decree is recognised only if both the jurisdiction and the ground match the law under which the couple married. A short stay abroad does not do: “residence does not mean a temporary residence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce,” the court said. Appearing only to object to jurisdiction is not a contest on the merits, and natural justice means more than serving papers; the court must ask whether the other spouse could actually defend the case, including whether they could afford to travel and fight it.

So when will a foreign divorce be accepted?

In three situations, according to the 1991 ruling. First, when the case is filed where the other spouse lives permanently and the ground is one their marriage law allows. Second, when the other spouse voluntarily takes part and contests a claim on such a ground. Third, when the other spouse consents to the divorce, even if the foreign court’s jurisdiction would not otherwise pass the test.

Outside these, a decree obtained abroad by one spouse alone, on a ground Indian law does not recognise, is unlikely to be enforced. That is the trap Reddy fell into: irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, and his wife never submitted to the British court.

Why does that make a second marriage a crime?

Because in Indian law the first marriage is still alive. If the foreign divorce is not recognised, the husband or wife who remarries is marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse, which is bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for offences after 1 July 2024). The offence carries up to seven years in prison.

Tuesday’s ruling closed two escape routes. The court said the inquiry could not be confined to the UK, where the second wedding took place, because the first marriage was performed in India. And it held that a new nationality does not change the law that governs a marriage solemnised under Indian law.

Has the court ruled this way before?

Several times, and the rule has held for 35 years.

How the courts have treated foreign divorces

1. 1975In Satya v Teja Singh, the Supreme Court refuses to recognise a foreign divorce the husband won by falsely claiming domicile there, treating it as fraud.
2. 9 July 1991Y Narasimha Rao: a Missouri decree on irretrievable breakdown, granted while the wife objected, is held unenforceable in India.
3. 1994In Neeraja Saraph, the court asks Parliament to consider safeguards for spouses in marriages with non-resident Indians.
4. 15 January 2026In the Kale case, a US decree on irretrievable breakdown fails Section 13; the court instead dissolves the marriage itself after 18 years of separation.
5. 3 November 2026N Sridhar Reddy: a UK divorce and British citizenship are no shield from a bigamy trial.

The January case shows the other side of the rule. The Supreme Court can end a marriage that has broken down beyond repair using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, and it did so for the Kale couple. What a foreign court cannot do is end a Hindu marriage on that ground for India, without the other spouse’s participation.

What should couples living abroad take from this?

A foreign divorce is safest when both spouses take part, or when the ground is one Indian law also allows. A spouse who contests the case on its merits, or agrees to the divorce, makes it far more likely to be recognised. A decree obtained alone, in a court where one partner has lived only briefly, invites exactly the kind of challenge that succeeded on Tuesday.

The court flagged the wider gap as long ago as 1994, when it asked Parliament to look at laws for marriages involving non-resident Indians. No comprehensive law has followed. Until it does, the 1991 rule decides these cases, one family at a time.