A Plea Across Borders: The Pakistani Wife, an Indian Court, and a Fight Against “Illegal” Remarriage 

In an unprecedented legal appeal, a Pakistani woman named Nikita has petitioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court in India to deport her husband, Vikram Kumar Nagdev, also a Pakistani citizen residing in Indore on a long-term visa, to prevent him from allegedly marrying another woman in March 2026 without divorcing her first. Married in Pakistan in 2020, the couple’s relationship broke down, with Nikita alleging abandonment and an impending illegal second marriage, while Vikram claims she left voluntarily and refuses a mutual divorce, accusing her of extortion. The case, filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, presents a complex jurisdictional dilemma, intertwining Indian immigration law with the matrimonial disputes of foreign nationals, and questions whether the court can intervene to preempt bigamy or if the matter should be resolved in Pakistani courts.

A Plea Across Borders: The Pakistani Wife, an Indian Court, and a Fight Against “Illegal” Remarriage 

In an unprecedented legal appeal that intertwines cross-border matrimony, immigration status, and alleged marital betrayal, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court finds itself at the centre of a deeply personal international dispute. The plea does not come from an Indian citizen, but from Nikita, a Pakistani woman, who is urging Indian judges to deport her husband to prevent what she claims will be an illegal second marriage in March 2026. This case, filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, is more than a family feud; it is a stark illustration of the complex legal and human dilemmas that arise when personal lives span contested geopolitical borders. 

The Anatomy of a Cross-Border Marriage Gone Sour 

Nikita and Vikram Kumar Nagdev, both Pakistani citizens, exchanged vows in Sindh province on January 26, 2020—a date coinciding with India’s Republic Day, an irony not lost in the current context. According to the petition, the couple initially moved to India, where Vikram, a Karachi native, holds a long-term visa and currently resides in Indore. The idyll was short-lived. Nikita alleges her husband abandoned her, forcing her to return to her parents’ home in Pakistan. From there, she claims she discovered his preparations to marry another woman in India next spring, while still legally wed to her. 

Vikram’s narrative starkly contradicts this. He asserts that Nikita left for Pakistan of her own volition and subsequently refused to return to India or engage in a mutual divorce. He speaks of attempts at reconciliation through community panchayats and accuses his wife of using the dispute as a pretext for extortion. “She has defamed me both domestically and abroad,” he stated, expressing his own desire to legally end the marriage, citing mental distress. 

The Legal Labyrinth: Jurisdiction, Visa, and Matrimonial Law 

At the heart of this petition lies a formidable legal tangle. Nikita’s lawyer argues that Vikram is “taking undue advantage of legal complications.” These complications are multifaceted: 

• Jurisdictional Quagmire: The couple are Pakistani citizens, married in Pakistan. Their matrimonial home, briefly, was in India. Where does the primary jurisdiction for their divorce lie? While Indian courts can entertain cases involving foreign citizens, especially when one party is resident in India, the enforcement of any order related to a marriage solemnized under Pakistani law is problematic. Kishor Kodwani of the Sindhi Panch Mediation Centre highlighted this core issue, recommending deportation so the matter can be settled in Pakistan, the “natural jurisdiction” for their family dispute. 

• The Long-Term Visa as Leverage: Vikram’s right to stay in India is contingent on his visa status. A writ of mandamus seeking deportation is an extraordinary remedy, typically invoked for violations of visa conditions or threats to public order. The court must decide whether an alleged intent to commit bigamy—a criminal offence under Indian law—constitutes a sufficient breach to warrant revoking his visa and deporting him. This turns a personal marital conflict into a matter of state privilege to host a foreign national. 

• The Shadow of Bigamy: In India, bigamy is a crime under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the offence is non-cognizable and complex to prove, requiring evidence of a second marriage ceremony conducted with proper rites. Nikita’s petition, based on alleged preparations, seeks pre-emptive justice to stop a crime before it occurs. This preventative approach is unusual in matrimonial disputes, which are typically adjudicated after the fact. 

The Human Dimension: Abandonment, Agency, and Allegations 

Beyond the legal statutes, the case pulses with raw human emotion and starkly opposed realities. For Nikita, stranded in Pakistan, the Indian legal system represents perhaps the only lever of power she can pull to hold her husband accountable. Her appeal to the court is a cry against perceived abandonment and the potential erasure of her marital status without consent. In societies where a woman’s social and sometimes economic security is tied to her marital standing, the threat of a secret second marriage can be devastating. 

Vikram, on the other hand, portrays himself as a man trying to move on from a broken marriage, hindered by a wife who refuses to participate in a legal divorce. His mention of community panchayats indicates attempts at traditional resolution, which have failed. His counter-allegation of extortion paints the dispute as not merely emotional but financially motivated. 

A Precedent in the Making? 

This case sits at a curious intersection of immigration law, private international law, and domestic family law. While Indian courts have often stepped in to protect the rights of women in transnational marriages (like in cases of abandoned NRI wives), the scenario here is flipped: the wife is a foreign national seeking action against a husband who is also a foreign national, but resident in India. 

The High Court’s decision, expected in the coming weeks, could set a significant, if niche, precedent. Will it interpret its powers under Article 226 expansively, to protect a foreign woman’s matrimonial rights from being violated by a foreign man on Indian soil? Or will it rule that the core of the dispute—the validity and dissolution of a Pakistani marriage—must rightfully be settled in Pakistani courts, thus limiting its intervention to immigration status? 

Legal experts suggest the court may tread a middle path. It might issue strict injunctions to Vikram Nagdev, restraining him from solemnizing any second marriage while the matter is sub-judice, and possibly direct him to appear before a family court to initiate proper divorce proceedings. Direct deportation, however, remains a drastic measure that the court might be reluctant to employ without clearer evidence of a visa violation or imminent crime. 

The Broader Canvas: Transnational Marriages in a Bitter World 

Ultimately, the story of Nikita and Vikram is a microcosm of the challenges faced by couples in our interconnected yet legally fragmented world. It highlights how nationality and residency can become weapons in marital breakdowns, and how gaps in international legal cooperation leave individuals vulnerable. Their dispute also underscores the limitations of community-based mediation in an era where families can be scattered across borders. 

As the Madhya Pradesh High Court prepares to hear this “peculiar appeal,” it is adjudicating not just on visas and marriage laws, but on a fundamental question of access to justice. Can a foreign citizen, feeling wronged by another foreign citizen residing in India, find an effective remedy in Indian courts? The answer will determine not just the fate of one strained marriage, but will also illuminate the reach of India’s judicial conscience in an increasingly transnational society. The ruling will resonate far beyond the courtroom in Indore, offering a defining moment for cross-border familial justice.