## Facts

- A husband and wife, both Pakistani nationals, married in Pakistan under a nikahnama that provided for a mahr (dower) but did not address division of later-acquired marital assets.
- The parties later lived in Maryland, where the husband worked and accrued a pension (including a World Bank pension) and the wife was primarily a homemaker.
- The wife filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, seeking an absolute divorce, alimony, and equitable distribution of marital property, including the husband’s pension.
- While the Maryland action was pending, the husband went to the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, D.C., and pronounced a talaq divorce under Pakistani law.
- The husband argued the Maryland case should be dismissed or limited because the talaq and Pakistani law controlled; he contended Pakistani law distributed property by title and provided no equitable distribution of assets titled solely in the husband’s name.
- The circuit court denied dismissal, declined to hold an additional evidentiary hearing on comity, granted an absolute divorce, and awarded the wife 50% of the husband’s pension on an “if, as, and when” basis.
- The husband appealed, challenging the refusal to extend comity to the talaq divorce for property consequences and challenging the pension award.

## Issues

1. Whether a Maryland court should extend comity to a Pakistani talaq divorce and associated property rules when their application would prevent equitable distribution of marital property under Maryland law.
2. Whether the trial court properly treated the husband’s pension as marital property and awarded the wife 50% of the pension on an “if, as, and when” basis.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by resolving comity without conducting an additional evidentiary hearing.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The court held comity could be denied where applying the foreign law would be repugnant to Maryland’s fundamental public policy on marital property.
- The court upheld refusing to give the talaq/property regime dispositive effect as to property distribution because it would leave the wife without an equitable share of assets titled solely in the husband’s name.
- The court affirmed classifying the husband’s pension as marital property and affirming the “if, as, and when” award granting the wife 50% of benefits when paid.
- The court found no abuse of discretion or reversible error in deciding comity on the record presented without a further evidentiary hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Comity is discretionary; a forum may decline recognition or application of foreign law when it conflicts with the forum’s strong public policy.
- Maryland’s marital property statute reflects a partnership theory of marriage and authorizes equitable distribution based on fairness, not merely on title.
- A foreign divorce/property regime that permits unilateral termination by one spouse while depriving the other spouse of any equitable claim to property acquired during the marriage may be rejected for property-allocation purposes as contrary to Maryland public policy.
- A pension earned during the marriage may be treated as marital property subject to equitable distribution.
- An “if, as, and when” order is an acceptable method to divide pension benefits by awarding a percentage of payments when the benefits are actually received.
- Determining whether to extend comity and how to treat foreign law for forum proceedings is a legal determination for the court and may be resolved on an adequate record without a separate evidentiary hearing.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Maryland’s authority to apply its equitable distribution law despite a foreign talaq divorce, holding that comity may be withheld when the foreign property rules would negate Maryland’s public policy of fair marital property division, and it upheld an award granting the wife one-half of the husband’s pension payable when benefits are received.


Aleem v. Aleem, 931 A.2d 1123 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007)