Aleem v. Aleem

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Family Law

Family Lawdivorcemarital propertycomityforeign divorce judgmentscomitytalaqPakistan

Facts

The parties, both Pakistani citizens, married in Pakistan in 1980 under a written marriage contract that provided for deferred dower but did not provide for division of marital property or waive either party's property rights. They lived in Maryland for 20 years, and while the wife's Maryland divorce action was pending, the husband went to the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, D.C. and performed talaq by declaring three times in writing that he divorced her. Under Pakistani law, absent contrary agreement, property follows title on divorce, so the wife would have no claim to property titled in the husband's name, including his World Bank pension and other assets. The wife sought to have those assets treated as marital property under Maryland law.

Issue

Whether Maryland courts must, under principles of international comity and conflict of laws, recognize the husband's Pakistani talaq divorce and the accompanying Pakistani property regime so as to prevent Maryland courts from adjudicating marital property. More specifically, the question was whether Maryland should give effect to a unilateral talaq divorce and Pakistani default property rules when they conflict with Maryland public policy and the wife's due-process rights.

Rule

A foreign-country divorce judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit, but only to recognition by comity. Maryland will deny comity to a foreign divorce procedure or foreign property law when it is contrary to Maryland public policy, including constitutional commitments to sex equality and statutory policies favoring fair and equitable division of marital property, or when the procedure affords insufficient due process to the spouse against whom it is invoked.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nadia Rahman files for divorce in Baltimore, seeking an equitable share of retirement benefits earned during the marriage. While the case is pending, her husband, Kamal Siddiq, obtains a divorce decree from the civil authorities of another country under that country's family law and argues the Maryland court must treat the decree as binding under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

How should the Maryland court respond?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that foreign-country judgments are not governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Instead, recognition depends on comity. Maryland therefore would not be required to give automatic conclusive effect to the foreign divorce decree, but would evaluate whether comity is appropriate. (Derived from Aleem v. Aleem (n.d.).)