Content provided in partnership with

Maryland Court of Appeals: Pakistani man must share pension

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), May 7, 2008 by Caryn Tamber

A Pakistani man cannot deny his ex-wife a share of his pension even though a Pakistani divorce decree he obtained does not provide for the division of property, the state's top court has held.

The Court of Appeals held unanimously that letting Pakistani law prevail would violate Maryland public policy.

Susan M. Friedman, who represents the ex-wife, Farah Aleem, said her client will now get a portion of Irfan Aleem's pension, property and vehicles.

"It's going to change her life, is what it's going to mean," said Friedman, of Kuder, Smollar & Friedman P.C. "She's been waiting to get that to which she is entitled for many years."

Most Popular Articles in Business: Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis; Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors; eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...; Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...; Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...; More »

At stake in the case are Mr. Aleem's $1 million pension, $850,000 in real property, $80,000 in personal property and "two or more vehicles," according to the opinion.

His attorney, Priya R. Aiyar of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel P.L.L.C., declined to comment on the holding Tuesday because she had not yet been able to reach her client to discuss the result.

Mr. Aleem said in his brief that Farah Aleem was awarded about $500,000 in assets by the Pakistani divorce decree.

According to the opinion, the Aleems, who are both Pakistani citizens, were married in Pakistan in 1980.

About 20 years ago, the Aleems moved here. Irfan Aleem worked at the World Bank.

In 2003, Farah Aleem initiated divorce proceedings in Montgomery County. Mr. Aleem then went to the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and obtained a Pakistani divorce by performing talaq, which involves the husband saying "I divorce thee" three times.

Unless the couple's marriage agreement expressly gives the wife the right to talaq, which the Aleems' did not, only the husband has that right.

In Pakistan, unless the marriage contract provides for the spouses to get a portion of each other's assets upon divorce, each party leaves the marriage only with the property titled in his or her name.

The terms of the marriage contract were largely silent on property rights but gave Farah Aleem a deferred dower right worth about $2,500. According to Tuesday's opinion by the Court of Appeals, Mr. Aleem's position was that payment of that amount "is all that is due the wife, as opposed to the one half of almost two million dollars that she might be entitled to under Maryland law."

Citing the precedent that foreign law will be respected only so long as it does not infringe on local public policy, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Montgomery County Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals that Farah Aleem was entitled to a portion of the pension.

Equal Rights Amendment

Judge Dale R. Cathell, who is retired and was specially assigned to the case, wrote that recognizing Pakistani law in this matter would violate Maryland's Equal Rights Amendment.

"[T]he enforceability of a foreign talaq divorce provision ... where only the male, i.e. husband, has an independent right to utilize talaq and the wife may utilize it only with the husband's permission, is contrary to Maryland's constitutional provisions and thus is contrary to the 'public policy' of Maryland," Cathell wrote.

He wrote that to hold otherwise would mean that a man who is a citizen of a country that has adopted talaq as civil law could divorce his wife before she could litigate a Maryland divorce. The wife would be denied any significant due process, he wrote.

"Additionally, a procedure that permits a man (and him only unless he agrees otherwise) to evade a divorce action begun in this State by rushing to the embassy of a country recognizing talaq and, without prior notice to the wife, perform "I divorce thee..." three times and thus summarily terminate the marriage and deprive his wife of marital property, confers insufficient due process to his wife," Cathell wrote.

In a footnote, the court clarified that its holding was limited to questions involving civil law, not the religious doctrine on which the law was based.

"In other words, we address Islamic law only to the extent it is also the civil law of a country. The viability of Islamic law as a religious canon is not intended to be affected."

Towson family lawyer John J. Condliffe, who was not involved in the Aleem case, said that when he first read about the case, he knew the court would have to side with Farah Aleem.

"The Court of Appeals did about the only thing that they could to rectify what would have been an inequitable resolution under Maryland law," Condliffe said. "I think it's good guidance that the Court of Appeals continues to refuse to tolerate bad behavior by litigants."

WHAT THE COURT HELD

Case: Aleem v. Aleem, CA No. 108, Sept. Term 2007. Reported. Opinion by Cathell, J., retired, spec. assigned. Filed May 6, 2008.

Issue: Did the lower court disregard principles of comity and conflict of law in (1) not recognizing a Pakistani divorce because Pakistan and Maryland have different laws concerning the division of property upon divorce? (2) concluding that Pakistan lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage because the parties lived in Maryland on diplomatic visas?

Maryland Court of Appeals: Pakistani man must share pension

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), May 7, 2008 by Caryn Tamber

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Home & Garden

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business