Aleem v. Aleem

Rule of Law:

A Maryland court will not grant comity to a foreign divorce, or its property distribution scheme, if that scheme is fundamentally contrary to Maryland's public policy requiring the fair and equitable adjustment of marital property interests.

Facts:

• Irfan Aleem (Husband) and Farah Aleem (Wife) were married in Karachi, Pakistan, on July 16, 1980, through a family-arranged meeting.
• Shortly after their marriage, Husband moved to England for doctoral studies, where Wife later joined him, and they lived there for four years.
• After Husband completed his studies, the parties moved to the United States and resided in Maryland for over twenty years, during which they had two children who are U.S. citizens.
• During the marriage, Wife was primarily a homemaker, and her ability to work was restricted by immigration status and the need for Husband's permission, while Husband was employed at the World Bank from 1985 until his retirement in 2004.
• The parties' marriage contract, a 'Nikah Nama,' included a deferred dowry of 51,000 Pakistani rupees ($2,500 U.S.) but was otherwise silent regarding the division of other property.
• While Wife's divorce action was pending in Maryland, Husband, on June 30, 2003, pronounced 'talaq' (divorce) three times at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C., and served Wife with notice.
• Under Pakistani law, this 'talaq' would make the divorce effective after 90 days if reconciliation was not achieved, and generally provides that property owned by the husband remains his and the wife has no claim thereto, absent specific contractual provision.

Procedural Posture:

• Farah Aleem (Wife) filed a bill of complaint for limited divorce in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, on March 3, 2003.
• Irfan Aleem (Husband) answered and counterclaimed.
• Husband, four months after the Maryland action was filed, pronounced 'talaq' at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C., and served Wife with a 'Divorce Deed' and notice under Pakistani law, later confirmed by a Pakistani Arbitration Council.
• On April 5, 2004, Husband moved to dismiss the Maryland divorce action, arguing that all issues had been decided in Pakistan, supported by an affidavit from a Pakistani lawyer.
• The circuit court (Sundt, J.) denied Husband's motion to dismiss on April 23, 2004, refusing to grant comity to the Pakistani divorce.
• Wife subsequently amended her complaint to seek an absolute divorce.
• After two trials resulted in dismissals without prejudice due to procedural deficiencies, a third trial commenced.
• During the third trial, Husband again moved for clarification on the denial of comity, which the court (Pincus, J.) denied.
• The circuit court (Pincus, J.) entered a judgment granting Wife an absolute divorce and ordered Husband to pay Wife fifty percent of his monthly benefit from his World Bank pension as spousal support.
• Husband moved to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that under the marriage contract and Pakistani law, Wife was not entitled to any portion of his pension, supporting his motion with additional expert affidavits.
• The circuit court denied Husband's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
• Husband noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.