Chaudry v. Chaudry

by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized

The Court, in favor of the Husband, recognized a talaq validated by a Pakistani court and denied spousal support to the Wife.

Chaudry v. Chaudry, 159 N.J. Super. 566; 388 A.2d 1000 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1978) Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Husband and Wife, both Pakistani, were married in Pakistan in 1961. From 1963 to 1968, the couple and their two daughters lived in the U.S., two years in New Jersey. In 1968, the Wife and the two children returned to Pakistan. In 1970, the Husband joined them in Pakistan, but came back to New Jersey in 1971 when he received a job at a hospital. He returned to Pakistan for four weeks in 1972. The couple’s third child was born in 1973. He was away from Pakistan from 1972 to 1975.

In 1973, the Husband sent a letter from New Jersey to his wife in Pakistan stating that he had filed divorce papers with the Pakistan consulate in New York City. He sent her a copy of the “talaq” (divorce pronouncement or deed). The divorce was held valid by a Pakistani lower court in 1974 and an appellate court, and after the time for appeal to the highest court ran out, the divorce judgment became final on December 1975. In March 1975, the Wife filed suit in New Jersey. The trial court accepted the Wife’s testimony that she and the children returned to Pakistan in 1968 with the intent of living with her husband, and that the Husband kept her and the children from coming to live in the U.S. The trial court awarded the Wife spousal support but denied her child support.

The Husband appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court’s decision and denied spousal support to the Wife. The court took notice of the fact that the divorce had been confirmed by a Pakistani court, and after appeal by the Wife, had been affirmed by an appellate court. The Wife had been represented in both proceedings. Both the Husband and Wife were citizens of Pakistan, the Wife lived there, and the Pakistani courts had jurisdiction to enter a divorce in this case. Because the Pakistani court’s judgment of divorce should have been recognized, the Husband and Wife were already divorced when the trial court in New Jersey awarded the Wife spousal support. The court also stated that enforcing the Pakistani divorce out of comity was not contrary to New Jersey’s public policy, because there was not an adequate nexus of marriage between the couple to New Jersey.

History: This case was appealed and review was denied by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Note: This ruling was distinguished in Maryland case, Aleem v. Aleem, 931 A.2d 1123 at 1131. In that case, the court did not apply Pakistani Law, because there was no ruling by a Pakistani court and the couple had lived in Maryland for over twenty years.

Aleem v. Aleem

by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized

The Court, in favor of the Wife, held that a talaq divorce obtained in accordance to Pakistani law could not be enforced by comity because it was so contrary to Maryland public policy.

Aleem v. Aleem, 931 A.2d 1123; 175 Md. App. 663 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Husband and Wife, of Pakistani descent, were married in Pakistan. The couple moved to the U.S. and have had been living in Maryland for over twenty years when the Wife sought a limited divorce. The court ordered the Husband to leave the family home and to pay for child support. Few months later, the Wife amended the complaint to request an absolute divorce. Before the Wife amended her complaint, the Husband presented himself at the Pakistani embassy in Washington D.C. and performed a “talaq” (divorce) in accordance with Pakistani law, including pronouncement of talaq, notice in writing, and supplying the wife with a copy of the notice. The Husband then requested that the Wife’s claim for divorce be dismissed. The Husband’s expert witness testified that under Pakistani law, the wife had no rights to property in her husband’s name. The Husband went through three trials, at the end of which the court granted the Wife a divorce and ordered that the Husband pay 50% of payments from his retirement plan to the Wife. While Husband wanted the court grant comity to the Pakistani divorce, the court refused.

The Husband appealed the lower court’s decision. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decisions and found that because Pakistani law was so contrary to Maryland public policy, no comity would be granted to the Pakistani divorce. The court pointed to the stark difference of “the default under Pakistani law is that the Wife had no right to property titled in Husband’s name, while the default under Maryland law is that the wife has marital property rights in property titled in the husband’s name.”

History: The Husband sought review. The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the lower courts’ decision in favor of the Wife. The court affirmed the ruling that enforcing a foreign talaq divorce, where only the husband had the right to utilize it and the wife lacked significant due process, was contrary to Maryland public policy.

Ahmad v. Ahmad

by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized

The Court, in favor of the Wife, affirmed decisions granting her division of the marital assets, spousal support and attorney fees.

Ahmad v. Ahmad, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5303 (2001) Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, 6th Appellate District, Lucas County

Husband and Wife were married in Jordan in 1991. After they were married, the couple came to Ohio where they lived for the duration of their marriage. November 1998, the couple traveled to Jordan. The Husband filed for divorce on December 2, 1998. The Wife left Jordan on December 3 and returned to the U.S. On December 6, the Husband was granted the divorce, and he remarried two weeks later.

December 14, the Wife filed for divorce in Ohio. The Husband responded in March saying that the court in Ohio had no subject matter jurisdiction, because of the Jordanian divorce decree. The court ordered the Husband to pay spousal support. The Husband filed a motion to dismiss and was denied. The trial court ruled that the Jordanian divorce decree was valid regarding the couple’s marital status, in persuaded by the fact of the Husband’s remarriage. But, because the decree was silence on division of property and spousal support, giving the decree effect beyond the termination of the marriage would violate the public policy of Ohio. In further proceedings, the court ordered division of marital property including the couple’s residence, Husband’s pension, Wife’s student loans, and an apartment complex in the Husband’s name. The court also ordered the Husband to pay a majority of the Wife’s attorney fees.

The Husband appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of the Wife. The court saw no abuse in the lower court’s justification for jurisdiction: the couple was domiciled in Ohio, the Husband was a U.S. Citizen, and the Jordanian divorce violated the Wife’s due process and Ohio pubic policy. The court also saw no abuse in the trial court’s assessment and division of marital property, spousal support, and attorney fees.

History: Appeal for review was denied by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

In re Marriage of Obaidi

by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized

The court, in favor of the husband, found that a mahr agreement that the husband signed without knowing the terms of the agreement was invalid and unenforceable.

In re Marriage of Obaidi, 154 Wn. App. 609; 226 P.3d 787 (2010) Court: Court of Appeals of Washington, Division3

The court, in favor of the husband, found that a mahr agreement that the husband signed without knowing the terms of the agreement was invalid and unenforceable.

Husband and Wife, both of Afghan descent, were married in the U.S. They held a “nikkah” (the court here describes as ‘engagement’) ceremony during which a “mahr” was signed (a prenuptial agreement that provides an immediate and long-term dowry to the wife). The mahr listed a postponed payment of $20,000. The Husband did not speak, read, or write Farsi. The Husband was told about the nikkah ceremony 15 minutes before the event took place. He asked an uncle to act as his representative during the discussion, but was not told the terms of the mahr until after he had signed it. Two years later, the Wife filed for divorce and argued that the Husband was required to pay her $20,000. The trial court found in favor of the wife and awarded her the $20,000 plus attorney fees.

The Husband appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the court reversed and found for the husband. Applying principles of contract law, the court held that the mahr agreement was invalid. The mahr was not clear on why or when the $20,000 would be paid. And furthermore, this mahr was not a valid contract where there was a “meeting of the minds on the essential terms.” The negotiations and the document were all in Farsi, and the Husband did not have the opportunity to seek advice before he signed the mahr. The court concluded that the Husband and Wife never entered into a valid contract which provided for $20,000 to be paid to the Wife in the event of a divorce.

Note: Request for review was denied by the Supreme Court of Washington.

In re Marriage of Dajani

by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized

The court, in favor of the Husband, found the dowry provision of a foreign marriage contract void and against public policy when the beneficiary of the provision initiated divorce.

In re Marriage of Dajani, 204 Cal. App. 3d 1387; 251 Cal. Rptr. 871 (1988) Court: Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate District, Division 3

The court, in favor of the Husband, found the dowry provision of a foreign marriage contract void and against public policy when the beneficiary of the provision initiated divorce.

Husband and Wife were married by proxy in Jordan in 1982. The marriage contract specified that a token amount of dowry was to be paid upon marriage with the balance to be paid upon the Husband’s death or the dissolution of the marriage. The dowry was 5000 Jordanian dinars including cash or furniture. At the time of marriage, the Wife received 1 dinar as a token. In 1985, Wife initiated divorce proceedings and sought enforcement of the dowry agreement to receive the rest of her dowry. The Husband argued that the Wife forfeited her right to the dowry by initiating the divorce. The trial court sided with the Husband and refused to enforce the agreement.

The Wife appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court and refused to enforce a foreign dowry agreement which gives financial benefit to the person who initiates the divorce. The court stated that enforcing the agreement would encourage “profiteering by divorce,” and prenuptial agreements to encourage divorce were against public policy.

Note: This ruling was criticized in In re Marriage of Bellio, 105 Cal.App.4th 630 at 635 saying a dowry of 5000 Jordanian dinars ($1,700) wasn’t enough to seriously jeopardize a marriage by inducing someone to initiate divorce.

In re Marriage of Shaban

by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized

The court awarded Wife assets in accordance to California community property law where the Husband could not prove the existence of a prenuptial agreement apart from the testimony of an Islamic Law expert.

In re Marriage of Shaban, 88 Cal. App. 4th 398; 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863 (2001) Court: Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate District, Division 3

The court awarded Wife assets in accordance to California community property law where the Husband could not prove the existence of a prenuptial agreement apart from the testimony of an Islamic Law expert. Husband and Wife were married in Egypt in 1974. After living in the U.S. for 17 years, the couple filed for divorce. During the divorce proceedings, the Husband claimed that the couple had a written prenuptial agreement and produced a one-page piece of paper written in Arabic and signed at the time of the wedding by the Husband and the Wife’s father. The Husband wanted to have an expert testify that the paper stated the Husband and Wife’s intent to be governed by Islamic Law in marriage and divorce, including property relations. The Husband argued that the Wife would then have no right to the Husband’s medical practice or retirement accounts. The trial court refused to allow the expert to testify. Also, the trial court found that the document was really a marriage certificate and not a prenuptial agreement. The property was then ordered to be divided according to California community property law. The court also ordered Husband to provide the Wife with her attorney fees for future appeals by the Husband.

Husband appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that because the Statute of Frauds applied to prenuptial agreements, parole evidence of the expert’s testimony was properly excluded. The court also found that the language in the document did not clearly state the parties’ desire to have their marriage and divorce governed by Islamic Law and so was too vague to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The court takes notice of ambiguity of the term “Islamic Law” given the various schools of interpretations that exist within Islamic Law. The appellate court also affirmed the award to the Wife for attorney fees.

Note: Request for rehearing and review was denied by the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of California.