Aleem v. Aleem

931 A.2d 1123 (Md. 2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Irfan (H), and Farah (W), are nationals of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. W was suing H for divorce in Circuit Court. H then divorced W by talaq, in accordance with Pakistani law. The controversy concerns the court's equitable division of marital property in the form of H's pension. H claims that the court did not give comity to Pakistani law under which his divorce by talaq did not include any equitable division of marital property titled in his name. H and W were married in Karachi, Pakistan after their families arranged their meeting. W was 18 years old, and H was 29 years old, and W had just finished high school. H was about to begin his doctoral studies at Oxford University in England. After the marriage, H moved to England. The parties never lived together in Pakistan. W eventually joined H in England, and the two lived there together for four years. After studies, they moved to the United States. They have been living in Maryland for over twenty years. They have two children, one in college, the other finishing high school. Both children were born in the United States and are U.S. citizens. W is 43 years old. W has earned 60 credits towards a bachelor's degree. She indicated a strong desire to complete her degree. W was a homemaker. H was employed at the World Bank during the marriage, from 1985 until his retirement in 2004. W's ability to obtain employment was severely limited. W had to get H's written permission before she could secure employment. W worked there for four and a half years. W has recently changed, and she obtained her Green Card in January 2006. She is now a permanent resident of Maryland, and she has no restrictions on employment. She currently works for Profitable Association in Washington, D.C. where she earns $2,894 net per month. She is responsible for her own medical insurance.' W sought a limited divorce. H answered and counterclaimed. W amended her complaint to seek an absolute divorce. H moved to dismiss the divorce action on the ground that 'all issues have already been decided in Pakistan. The marriage was pursuant to a contract, which called for a deferred dowry of 51,000 Pakistani rupees, which is $2,500. H presented at the Pakistani Embassy and before two witnesses, he signed and had notarized a 'Divorce Deed.' A private process server served W with the 'Divorce Decree [Deed],' a check for $2,500, and a letter from H concerning notice under § 7.1 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (Pakistan) 1961. Ahsan Zahir Rizvi, a Pakistani lawyer, affirmed that, under Pakistani law, the talaq pronounced by H on June 30, 2003, became effective ninety days after notice had been delivered to the 'officer appointed for receiving the same.' Under Pakistan law, all property owned by the husband on the date of such termination of marriage remains the husband's property, and the wife has [no] claim thereto. H's motion to dismiss was heard on April 23, and it was denied as the judge refused to give comity to such an award. Eventually, after a number of trials, a court entered a judgment granting W an absolute divorce, on the ground of a two-year separation, and the court signed an amended order for spousal support. The order directed H to pay to W, until the death of either party, fifty percent of H's monthly benefit from the Staff Retirement Plan of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Eventually, H appealed.