83 Cal. App. 2d 256, 188 P.2d 499 (1948)
Dalip Singh Bir, a native of India, died intestate in San Joaquin County on April 18, 1945. Respondent Florence Boyes was appointed and qualified as administratrix of his estate.1
On April 4, 1947, two women named Harnam Kaur and Jiwi, both residents of India, joined in a petition to determine heirship.2 They alleged that they were the legally wedded wives of the deceased, having lawfully married him in the Punjab over 50 years ago while all parties were domiciled in Punjab Province, British India, according to the law and manner of the Jat community.3
Their petition further alleged that the residue of the estate consists of approximately $1,450 in cash and that in India petitioners would be entitled to share equally in the estate.4 The record before the court contains a stipulation signed by counsel for the respective parties.5 The stipulation states that the petition was presented to the court as a joint petition requesting solely a judgment of an undivided one-half interest to each petitioner as the legal widows of Dalip Singh Bir.6
The trial court found that decedent, while domiciled in the Punjab Province of India, there married and was possessed of two wives, the petitioners above named, and that petitioners were legal spouses of decedent under the laws of the Punjab Province of India. It further found that thereafter decedent emigrated to the United States and established residence in California, and that the money belonging to his estate was community property. Neither of said marriages had been dissolved prior to decedent’s death, but no satisfactory proof was introduced as to which of the marriages was first performed.7
Upon these findings of fact the trial court entered an order continuing the matter awaiting proof as to which of the marriages was first performed and which of the two petitioners was the initial wife of decedent.8 From that order the two wives have appealed.9
Whether California recognizes the two marriages contracted in India as valid for determining the petitioners' rights to succeed to the decedent's estate?10
California Civil Code § 63 provides that all marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted are valid in this state.11 Courts recognize polygamous marriages valid under the law of the domicile for purposes of succession to property, as public policy concerns apply only to cohabitation within the state and not to descent of property.12
Yes. The two marriages were validly contracted in India under the law of the parties' domicile at the time.13 Because the dispute concerns only the descent of property located in California, the public policy against polygamy does not prevent recognition of both wives as legal widows for succession purposes.14 The trial court therefore erred when it refused to recognize both petitioners without proof of which marriage occurred first.
California recognizes the two marriages contracted in India as valid for determining the petitioners' rights to succeed to the decedent's estate.15