Chaudry v. Chaudr

388 A.2d 1000 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D are citizens of Pakistan. W and the children of the marriage reside in Pakistan. D practices medicine as a psychiatrist in New Jersey and resides in New Jersey. W filed a complaint alleging that she and the children were abandoned by H in May 1972 and has refused to support her or the children. D claims he obtained a valid divorce in Pakistan and all the matters being raised by W had been raised in Pakistan. D contends he has met all financial obligations to P in accordance with the antenuptial agreement between them and the laws of Pakistan, 'the country with jurisdiction over the parties, the marriage, and divorce.' The trial judge refused to recognize the Pakistan divorce and awarded P separate maintenance in the sum of $430 a month. D's method of obtaining the divorce in the Pakistan consulate in New York, while he resided in New Jersey, rendered it invalid under the laws of New Jersey. Also, the fact that Pakistan law, pursuant to which a divorced wife is not entitled to alimony, and the antenuptial agreement, under which P's sole property or other financial right was to receive 15,000 rupees ($1,500) from the D, were so offensive to this State's public policy as to invalidate the divorce and to entitle her to separate maintenance, where, as here, D was found to have abandoned her. The judge found that D was 'domiciled in New Jersey, has practiced medicine here' in excess of nine years, has a medical license and owns real estate and other property here, and 'in every other respect demonstrates an intention not to return to Pakistan but to remain here to enjoy the pleasures' of these assets and 'the protection and benefits of our laws and sovereignty.' The court found that D had also taken affirmative action to prevent P from coming to reside in this Country. The court found that the [antenuptial] agreement was contrary to the public policy of the State. P had to waive, give up or not claim support or alimony in the event of a divorce, and it cannot be said that with that choice she chose to do it because there was no choice involved. The court denied support for the three children because they were beyond its jurisdiction. D appealed from the separate maintenance award. P appealed from the judgment to the extent that it denies support for the children.