Fariha Ashfaq v. Mohammad Ashfaq
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4305
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Fariha and Mohammad married in Pakistan (Dec 2007); Mohammad returned to the U.S.; Fariha joined him in the U.S. in June 2009.
- In Nov 2009 while in Pakistan the parties separated; Mohammad testified he pronounced triple talaq, notified the Union Council, and mailed a divorce deed to Fariha’s family; Mohammad returned to the U.S. and later remarried.
- Mohammad presented a Pakistani Union Council divorce decree and a Pakistani family-law expert who testified the divorce complied with the Muslim Family Law Ordinance and became final after the mandatory 90-day reconciliation period.
- Fariha filed for divorce in Texas (Oct 2011) and challenged recognition of the Pakistani decree, arguing Texas had sole jurisdiction, the Pakistani procedure violates due process/public policy, and Mohammad failed to comply with Pakistani law.
- The trial court dismissed Fariha’s Texas divorce for want of jurisdiction, found the Pakistani divorce valid, and treated the remaining pleadings as a post-divorce asset-division petition; Fariha appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ashfaq) | Defendant's Argument (Ashfaq) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas had exclusive jurisdiction over the divorce | Texas domicile gives Texas sole jurisdiction to adjudicate divorce | Recognition of a valid foreign divorce is a comity question; Pakistani law governs validity if proved | Court affirmed: recognition of Pakistani divorce was discretionary and not barred; no error in dismissal |
| Whether Pakistani divorce should be recognized (due process/public policy) | Pakistani procedure denies due process and is fundamentally unfair; should not be recognized | Pakistani Ordinance includes notice, 90‑day reconciliation, and criminal penalties for noncompliance; procedures satisfy due process | Court held Ordinance procedures sufficed; comity recognition not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Mohammad complied with Pakistani legal requirements for divorce | Mohammad failed to follow required procedures; decree invalid | Mohammad’s expert and testimony showed notice to wife/family, notice to Union Council, 90‑day period, and maher payment accepted | Court accepted trial court credibility findings; held Mohammad complied and divorce was valid |
| Whether Fariha’s post-trial challenges to document discrepancies defeat validity | Raised for first time on appeal without expert proof; acceptance of maher estops denial | Defendant argued discrepancies not shown to invalidate decree; estoppel by acceptance of benefits | Court held appellate challenges insufficient and estoppel applied; divorce remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 (due process bars recognition of foreign judgments obtained without due process)
- Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (domicile is foundation for divorce jurisdiction)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (bench-trial standards for credibility and evidentiary sufficiency)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (trial court not an abuse of discretion when some evidence supports decision)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (subject-matter jurisdiction is essential and cannot be waived)
- Acain v. Int’l Plant Servs., LLC, 449 S.W.3d 655 (recognition of foreign judgments based on comity is discretionary)