Key Facts
- •Cross-applications regarding the validity and recognition of a Pakistani divorce and the jurisdiction of the English court.
- •Wife (W) is a dual UK/Pakistani national residing in London; Husband (H) is a Pakistani national residing in Pakistan.
- •Parties married in Pakistan in 2012, separated in 2015, and H claims to have initiated a talaq divorce in Pakistan in 2016.
- •H claims to have served divorce documents on W at an address she no longer resided at and fulfilled the requirements under the Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961 (MFLO 1961).
- •W contends she had no knowledge of the divorce proceedings until 2023 and challenges their validity.
- •W filed for divorce in England in 2023 and filed a jactitation suit in Pakistan.
- •A single joint expert (SJE) reported on the validity of the Pakistani divorce under Pakistani law.
Legal Principles
Recognition of overseas divorces under FLA 1986 ss46 and 51.
Family Law Act 1986
Interpretation of 'effective' in FLA 1986 s46(1)(a) – entails compliance with relevant legislation.
Kellman v Kellman [2000] 1 FLR 785
Requirements for valid talaq under MFLO 1961 s7 – notice to chairman is mandatory, notice to wife is directory.
Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961, Ali Nawaz Gardezi v Muhammad Yusuf PLD [1963] SC 51
Principles for refusing recognition under FLA 1986 s51(3) – reasonable steps for notice and opportunity to participate, public policy.
Duhur-Johnson v Duhur-Johnson [2005] 2 FLR 1042, Olafisoye v Olafisoye (No. 2) [2011] 2 FLR 564
Jurisdictional grounds for divorce under DMPA 1973 s5(2) – habitual residence, domicile.
Divorce, etc. (Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings) Act 1973
Definition of domicile – requirements for domicile of choice.
Barlow Clowes International Limited v Henwood [2008] BPIR 778
Habitual residence – requirements for habitual residence and interpretation of DMPA 1973 s5(2) post-Brexit.
Marinos v Marinos [2007] 2 FLR 101, Munro v Munro [2008] 1 FLR 1613, Pierburg v Pierburg [2019] 2 FLR 527, BM v LO (Case C462/22)
Outcomes
Pakistani divorce recognised as valid and effective.
Court accepts SJE's expert opinion that the Pakistani divorce was effective despite the failure to serve W with notice at her current address. W had actual knowledge of the proceedings.
W's divorce application in England dismissed.
Court finds W did not meet the jurisdictional requirements for divorce in England, lacking both domicile of choice and habitual residence.