Indore, Madhya Pradesh: A Pakistani woman has filed a remarkable petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking the deportation of her husband to prevent him from marrying again in India. The case, lodged before the Indore bench under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, highlights complex cross-border family law issues and the challenges faced when personal disputes involve citizens of another country.

The petitioner, identified as Nikita, resides with her parents in Pakistan and has accused her husband, Vikram Kumar Nagdev, of planning a second marriage without first obtaining a divorce. Both Nikita and Nagdev are Pakistani citizens. The couple was married in the Sindh province of Pakistan on January 26, 2020, but later moved to India. Nagdev, a resident of Karachi, is currently staying in Indore on a long-term visa.

In her petition, Nikita alleged that her husband has abandoned her and is preparing to marry another woman in March 2026, in violation of her legal rights. Her plea seeks to prevent this potential second marriage and to have her husband deported to Pakistan, citing that the matter falls under Pakistani jurisdiction. “My client has requested the high court in her petition to prevent her husband, who is taking undue advantage of legal complications, from marrying for the second time in India, and to deport him to Pakistan,” said her lawyer.

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution empowers high courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. In this case, Nikita’s petition invokes the court’s authority to prevent what she considers an unlawful second marriage by her husband on Indian soil.

The husband, Vikram Kumar Nagdev, has denied the allegations and countered that Nikita returned to Pakistan of her own accord and refused to come back to India or obtain a mutual divorce. “We came to India after marrying in Pakistan. Shortly thereafter, my wife returned to Pakistan of her own will. She refused to come to India or obtain a divorce by mutual consent. I also tried to resolve the family dispute through our community’s panchayats, but she refused,” Nagdev said.

Nagdev further accused his wife of attempting to extort money under the pretext of the ongoing dispute. “Now I want to divorce my wife. She has defamed me both domestically and abroad and has caused me mental distress,” he added. He is currently residing in Indore legally on a long-term visa and insists he seeks to formalize the divorce.

Before approaching the high court, the couple had attempted mediation through the Sindhi Panch Mediation and Legal Consultancy Centre in Indore, but no resolution was reached. Kishor Kodwani, head of the consultancy centre and a social activist, stated, “Despite my numerous efforts, the two parties failed to reach a compromise. Subsequently, in my report to the district administration, I recommended that Nagdev be sent back to Pakistan because he and his wife are both Pakistani citizens and Pakistan is the jurisdiction for their family dispute.”

The case underscores the legal complications that arise when family disputes cross national boundaries. While India allows foreign nationals to live, work, and seek redress within its territory under visa regulations, matters of marriage, divorce, and custody for foreign citizens are generally expected to be resolved in the home country. Nikita’s petition raises questions about the enforcement of personal law provisions in cross-border contexts and the court’s ability to intervene to prevent potential violations of marital rights on Indian soil.

The Indore High Court is expected to hear the matter next week. Legal observers note that the case may require the court to carefully balance principles of jurisdiction, visa regulations, and the personal rights of foreign nationals. In addition, the matter raises broader questions about preventive legal measures in cases of alleged impending polygamy and the extent to which Indian courts can act when both parties are foreign nationals.

This unusual petition has already attracted public attention due to its cross-border implications and the uncommon nature of seeking deportation to prevent a second marriage. It highlights the complex intersection of immigration law, family law, and international jurisdiction, and could set an important precedent for how Indian courts handle similar disputes in the future.

As the case proceeds, both parties are expected to present detailed evidence regarding the marriage, residence, and intentions of the husband. The high court will also likely consider the prior mediation attempts and reports submitted to local authorities, including the recommendation for Nagdev’s deportation.

This dispute reflects the challenges that arise when personal and legal rights intersect across borders, particularly in countries with shared cultural and familial ties but distinct legal systems. With the hearing scheduled for next week, the Madhya Pradesh High Court will need to address not only the immediate claims of Nikita but also the broader implications for foreign nationals seeking legal remedies in India.

The outcome of this case could influence how Indian courts approach similar petitions from foreign nationals in the future, particularly in cases where family disputes risk violating local law or involve potential second marriages without consent. Legal experts say that the court will need to weigh carefully the rights of both the husband and wife while ensuring adherence to domestic legal frameworks and international norms.

In the meantime, both Nikita and Nagdev remain in their respective countries, with the former in Pakistan and the latter in Indore, as the legal process moves forward. The case has also brought attention to the role of community-based mediation in resolving cross-border family disputes and the limitations of such interventions when parties fail to compromise.

With Indian courts increasingly receiving petitions involving foreign nationals, this case is seen as a landmark instance that could clarify procedural and substantive issues in cross-border matrimonial law, particularly regarding prevention of polygamous marriages and enforcement of marital rights.

In conclusion, the petition by Nikita before the Madhya Pradesh High Court raises critical issues at the intersection of family law, immigration, and international jurisdiction. By seeking deportation of her husband to prevent a second marriage, the case tests the ability of Indian courts to intervene in personal disputes involving foreign nationals while balancing legal principles and fundamental rights. The coming hearings are likely to provide clarity on the extent of judicial intervention permissible in such cross-border marital disputes.