• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Hussain -v- Parveen: The problems with Trans-national divorces

In the recent case of Hussain v Parveen (2021) EWFC73, the court provided some further clarity on the validity of overseas divorces which are transnational in nature.

This case involved a breakdown of a marriage whereby the Respondent had been previously married but in the first marriage she was residing in Pakistan whilst her ‘first’ husband was residing in England. The couple had no children and had only lived together for a short period of time before the ‘first’ husband returned to England.

The talak was pronounced in England through a letter sent to the wife’s brother which was subsequently converted by a mosque in Bradford into a divorce certificate. The mosque’s mufti provided evidence that this procedure met the pre-requisite requirements for an Islamic divorce but explained to the parties that it needed to be registered with the Union Council in Pakistan before it could be officially recognised as a legal divorce in Pakistan. The divorce certificate was sent to the wife in Pakistan before being forwarded to the local Union Council in Pakistan. The Union Council declared in a document sent to the parties that the procedure initiated by the ‘first husband’ was in accordance with the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 which governs the rules regarding marriage and divorce in Pakistan.

The wife married her ‘second’ husband in a Nikah ceremony in Pakistan in December 2008 and moved to England in March 2009 to live with her new husband.

The marriage later broke down and the ‘second’ husband declared the marriage to be nullified on the basis of bigamy, claiming that his wife still remained married to her ‘first husband.’

In these proceedings, the main dispute surrounded the validity of this first divorce and secondly, whether there had been a second marriage at all (as the Respondent had been bigamous by entering into the ‘second’ marriage without a valid divorce).

The first issue for the judge to consider related to the matter of jurisdiction due to the dual-national nature of proceedings. It was held by HHJ Kloss based on the authorities cited by the Petitioner that he did have jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by the parties.

 The second and more fundamental question for HHJ Kloss was whether the first divorce was ‘transnational’ and therefore incapable of being recognised in England and Wales. The proceedings that ensued as part of the first divorce were partly in England and partly in Pakistan. HHJ Kloss’ judgment suggested that the criteria for an effective divorce under the law of Pakistan was effective. The more pressing issue was whether a talaq obtained in Pakistan could be recognised as an “overseas divorce” under the Family Law Act 1986. HHJ Kloss held in his judgment that the proceedings were transnational and that the two crucial parts of the proceedings were not instituted in the same country. The Petitioner’s argument that the Respondent’s ‘first divorce’ was not valid succeeded and the wife’s ‘first divorce’ was declared a nullity.

This case clearly emphasises that divorces with an international element are often complex, and spouses thinking of separating should be seeking specialist legal advice.

At Charles Russell Speechlys LLP our family law practitioners specialise in divorces with an international element.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2024

    Charlotte Ford

    Events

  • How is trust reporting under the Register of Overseas Entities changing after 4 June 2024?

    Jack Carter

    Insights

  • Relocation to Italy: Italian Lump Sum Tax Regime

    Nicola Saccardo

    Insights

  • Wills for Brits in Switzerland (or with assets here)

    Michael Wells-Greco

    Insights

  • DIFC Courts Release 2023 Annual Report

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • The Telegraph quotes Sophie Dworetzsky on plans to scrap the non-dom tax status

    Sophie Dworetzsky

    In the Press

  • I Want to Relocate to Switzerland - what do I need to know?

    Grégoire Uldry

    Insights

  • Wealth Management in Qatar

    Alim Khamis FCIArb

    Insights

  • The Rights of Beneficiaries: Access to Trust Information

    Samantha Ruston

    Insights

  • The UK’s March 2024 Budget: how the proposed new tax rules will work for US-connected clients

    Sangna Chauhan

    Insights

  • The UK’s March 2024 budget: Offshore trusts - have reports of their demise been greatly exaggerated?

    Sophie Dworetzsky

    Insights

  • Playing with FYR: planning opportunities offered by the UK’s proposed four-year regime for newcomers to the UK

    Catrin Harrison

    Insights

  • James Broadhurst writes for the Financial Times’ Your Questions column on inheriting company shares

    James Broadhurst

    In the Press

  • Regime change: The beginning of the end of the remittance basis

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • IFA Magazine quotes Julia Cox on the possibility of more tax cuts before the general election

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • eprivateclient quotes Sally Ashford on considerations around power of attorney

    Sally Ashford

    In the Press

  • Computer says No - my prediction of UK border chaos on Wednesday 1 January 2025

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • Cosmopolitan quotes Sarah Jane Boon on how to deal with break-up admin

    Sarah Jane Boon

    In the Press

  • The Financial Times, The Guardian and City AM quote Sophie Dworetzsky and Dominic Lawrance on Labour’s proposed tax crackdown on non-doms

    Sophie Dworetzsky

    In the Press

  • Why Switzerland is poised to become a prime jurisdiction for families to establish their private trust companies

    Dharshi Wijetunga

    Insights

Back to top