Politics

From Momotaz v. Sattar, determined Thursday by the Ohio Court docket of Appeals, in an opinion by Choose Sean Gallagher, joined by Judges Anita Laster Mays and Eileen Gallagher:

On August 22, 2005, the events participated in a telephonic wedding ceremony, which was carried out over a speaker cellphone. On the time of the wedding ceremony, husband resided in the US, spouse resided in Bangladesh, and each had been residents of Bangladesh. Husband traveled from Pennsylvania to New York and was with pals and kinfolk through the ceremony. Spouse was in Bangladesh with family and friends members and husband’s father. Additionally current in Bangladesh was Mawlana Kofiul Ahmed, who solemnized the wedding and recognized himself as an assistant marriage registrar, and Abul Hashem Majumdar, a group chief who appeared to signal the wedding register on husband’s behalf as his “pleader.”

Footage of the wedding ceremony had been offered. {One {photograph} depicts Majumdar signing the wedding register through the wedding ceremony. Spouse alleges that Majumdar was invited by husband’s father to be the pleader. Though there are conflicting statements from witnesses, a number of witnesses acknowledged that through the ceremony husband was requested for the appointment of Majumdar as his pleader and husband consented.} Witness statements indicated that the solemnization was in response to Sharia regulation.

The authorized marriage contract that was entered into between the events is known as a “Nikah Nama.” Husband acknowledged in his deposition that there have been no points with the ceremony or the solemnization of the wedding earlier than witnesses in response to Muslim regulation, and he believed he was lawfully married in response to Bangladesh regulation.

Following the wedding ceremony, spouse continued to reside in Bangladesh till 2007, when husband traveled to Bangladesh. The wedding was consummated at the moment. After a short lived keep in Canada, in August 2007, the couple arrived collectively in the US, and so they resided collectively in Pennsylvania. One little one was born as difficulty of the wedding in February 2009. In October 2009, the household moved to Cleveland. All through their marriage, husband and spouse offered themselves as a married couple. They lived collectively for 12 years, raised their little one collectively, filed joint earnings tax returns, and spouse obtained tuition advantages at Case Western Reserve College as a result of husband was a school member.

However when the wedding broke down, the husband took the view that the wedding was invalid from the outset, arguing that numerous procedural guidelines required by Bangladesh regulation weren’t complied with. No, mentioned the Ohio court docket:

On April 29, 2021, the trial court docket granted spouse’s movement and denied husband’s movement. The trial court docket decided that “[t]he events’ marriage * * * is ruled by Muslim Regulation often known as ‘Sharia Regulation’ or ‘Mohammedan Regulation[,]’ ” that “the validity of the registration doc shouldn’t be a component to a legitimate Muslim marriage in Bangladesh and an invalid registration doesn’t render the wedding invalid,” and that the weather for a legitimate Muslim marriage had been met. Upon the proof offered, the trial court docket concluded as follows:

[T]he Court docket finds that there are not any points of fabric truth and the events’ marriage in Bangladesh was legitimate. [Wife] demonstrated that: (1) the events’ admitted phone marriage on August 22, 2005 met the necessities of a legitimate Mohammedan and Bangladeshi marriage and [2] registration of the wedding shouldn’t be a necessary component to be able to set up the validity of a wedding. Accordingly, [Wife] is entitled to judgment as a matter of regulation and the Court docket retains jurisdiction over the events’ divorce.

… The trial court docket decided that the events’ marriage was legitimate below Bangladesh regulation. Extra particularly, the court docket discovered that the events agreed the wedding met the necessities of a legitimate Mohammedan and Bangladeshi marriage and that the alleged invalidity of the registration doesn’t render the wedding invalid. Upon our assessment of the report, we agree….

Husband proceeds to argue that the trial court docket erred by making use of the Muslim Sharia Regulation of Bangladesh as a result of he was a resident of the US and never a Bangladesh resident on the time of the 2005 telephonic wedding ceremony. In help of this argument, he cites to the Muslim Private Regulation (Shariat) Utility Act, 1937, which makes “provision for the applying of the Muslim Private Regulation (Shariat) to Muslims in Bangladesh” and states that “[i]t extends to the entire of Bangladesh.” Whereas husband refers to language referencing a “resident of Bangladesh” he cites no authority or logical motive to restrict the Muslim Sharia Regulation to solely residents of Bangladesh. Additional, as argued by spouse, subsequent legislative enactments to the 1937 Act, together with the 1961 Household Legal guidelines and the 1974 Registration Act, are indicative of together with “Muslim residents of Bangladesh wherever they might be” and husband availed himself of those legal guidelines. Moreover, the knowledgeable authorized opinions offered by spouse help the conclusion that the wedding between the events was legitimate.

Husband additional claims that the trial court docket erred by recognizing a transnational telephonic marriage solemnization regardless of the shortage of any authorizing provision of Bangladesh regulation or Muslim regulation. Nonetheless, as acknowledged within the authorized opinion of Mahmud & Bhuiyan Barristers & Advocates, below Bangladesh regulation or Mohammedan regulation, “there is no such thing as a authorized bar towards such phone marriage” and so they “are frequent in Bangladesh, and since they’ve all of the necessities of a legitimate marriage contract, they’re legitimate below the legal guidelines of Bangladesh.” That is in line with authority that “[m]arriage below the Mohammedan Regulation is a civil contract requiring no ceremony or particular formality.” Thus, as noticed by Barrister Kahn, “[t]listed below are witness statements that this marriage was carried out in response to Sharia regulation” and “the mere incontrovertible fact that the wedding was carried out by phone is not going to invalidate this in any other case legitimate marriage.”

Primarily based on the details and circumstances of this case, we discover the trial court docket didn’t err to find the wedding between husband and spouse was legitimate….

Choose Gallagher, joined by Choose Laster Mays, added:

I concur with the choice issued by this court docket and write individually to specific my incredulity with appellant’s place that there was no authorized marriage between himself and his ex-wife. I’m flummoxed by his assertion.

As appellant means that there was no authorized marriage, then I’d counsel that there was fraud dedicated by him towards the US of America and his employer, Case Western Reserve College.

Appellant secured entry into this nation, albeit by Canada for causes that are unclear, for his partner. Appellant and his partner filed joint tax returns thereby using the system in that respect. Appellant and his partner took benefit of his employer, Case Western Reserve College, to avail themselves of tuition advantages for spouses of workers.

I discover that for appellant to now argue that there was no legitimate marriage is staggering.

Congratulations to Sharon Comet-Epstein and to John Sayre (Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper, LLC), who represented the spouse.