NEW DELHI: Getting a divorce in the UK and becoming a British citizen will not save a man from a bigamy case in India if his first marriage was solemnised here under Hindu law. The Supreme Court has made that clear in a landmark ruling.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the plea of a medical doctor who remarried after obtaining a divorce from the Cambridge County Court and acquiring UK citizenship by naturalisation.
The Cambridge County Court had made the divorce final on January 29, 2014, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That ground is not recognised under Hindu marriage law.
The first wife lodged an FIR in 2016 alleging bigamy. The husband challenged it, arguing that his second marriage took place abroad, he was now a British citizen, and the IPC (Indian Penal Code) did not apply to him under Section 4.
The Court rejected all these arguments.
"Such a decree cannot automatically be accorded recognition in India. In our view, the foreign divorce decree was passed in contravention of the existing matrimonial law in India and on a ground that is not even recognised statutorily," the bench held.
The decree violated Section 13 of the CPC and the principles laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao versus Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991). A foreign decree must satisfy Section 13 to be recognised. If it does not, it cannot be permitted to defeat Section 494 of the IPC.
The bench held that a subsequent change of nationality cannot defeat the legal consequences of an Indian marriage. The first marriage was solemnised in India under Hindu rites. The enquiry into bigamy must look at the subsisting matrimonial relationship, not just the place of the second marriage.
The Court also held that bigamy is a continuing offence. The delay of nearly two years in lodging the FIR was therefore irrelevant. "On every occasion the disobedience or noncompliance occurs, the offence is committed," it said.
The appellants included the husband, his second wife and his parents. They had challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court's July 8, 2019, order refusing to quash proceedings before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.
They argued that the foreign decree remained valid unless set aside by an Indian civil court under Section 14 of the CPC, and that the complaint was motivated by harassment.
The Court noted that the husband had first approached a Guntur court for divorce, failed, withdrew his appeal, then took UK citizenship and approached the foreign court. The wife had objected to the jurisdiction of the UK court, so her participation was not unconditional submission.
While sustaining proceedings against the husband, the Court quashed them against his parents and second wife, finding no overt act.
