A talaq pronounced in England as between parties who were Saudi nationals was not to be recognised in English law as a valid extra judicial overseas divorce, even though it otherwise complied with Sharia law. Section 44(1)(a) provides that no divorce obtained in any part of the British Islands is effective in any part of the United Kingdom unless granted by a court of civil jurisdiction. ‘Although historically this country is part of the Christian west, and although it has an established church which is Christian, I sit as a secular judge serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths in which all of us can now take pride, sworn to do justice ‘to all manner of people’. Religion – whatever the particular believer’s faith – is no doubt something to be encouraged but it is not the business of government or of the secular courts. So the starting point of the law is an essentially agnostic view of religious beliefs and a tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity. A secular judge must be wary of straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state. It is not for a judge to weigh one religion against another. All are entitled to equal respect, whether in times of peace or, as at present, amidst the clash of arms.’
Judges:
Justice Munby
Citations:
Times 28-Nov-2001, [2002] 1 FLR 479, [2002] Fam Law 97, [2001] EWHC 556 (Fam), [2002] 2 FCR 427
Links:
Statutes:
Family Law Act 1986 Part II 44(1)(a) 45(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – El Fadl v El Fadl FD 2000
The court was asked as to the recognition of a Sharia compliant divorce between Lebanese Muslims. Under the relevant Lebanese 1962 legislation a Talaq was to be pronounced before 2 witnesses, a requirement of most systems of traditional Islamic . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Cited – HH Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group and Another QBD 17-May-2010
The claimant, a Sikh religious leader complained of defamation in a Sikh journal in England. The defendant said the claim was non-justiciable since it required the court to pronouce on a matter of religious doctrine.
Held: The plea of . .
Cited – H v S FD 18-Nov-2011
The court was asked whether for the purposes of English divorce and connected proceedings a Talaq pronounced by the respondent husband in Saudi Arabia and placed by Deed of Confirmation before the Sharia Court is entitled to be afforded recognition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.166877