Ahkter v Khan

Last updated

Ahkter v Khan
Royal courts of justice.jpg
Court Court of Appeal
Full case nameAttorney General v Ahkter
Decided14 February 2020
Citation(s)[2020] EWCA Civ 122; [2020] 2 WLR 1183; [2020] 2 FLR 139
Case opinions
An Islamic ceremony of marriage which was not performed in accordance with the formalities required by the Marriage Act 1949 for the creation of a valid marriage under English law was a "non-qualifying ceremony" which did not create even a void marriage.
Keywords
  • children's welfare
  • decrees of nullity
  • marriage ceremony
  • non-marriage
  • presumptions
  • religious marriages
  • void marriages

Ahkter v Khan [2020] EWCA 122, also known as Attorney General v Ahkter, is an English family law Court of Appeal case concerning the validity of an Islamic ceremony of marriage. A woman who recently divorced her husband petitioned the court to determine whether the marriage, resulting from a Nikah, was void marriage or a non-marriage. The Family Court had held the marriage was void, granting her financial remedies. The Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the decision and denied financial remedies. The case received much scholarly and media attention on the requirements for marriage and the protection of vulnerable spouses. [1] [2]

Contents

Context

The Marriage Act 1949 and Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 set out conditions for a marriage ceremony to be recognized as valid, void, voidable or outside the Marriage Acts. A valid marriage satisfies all the conditions in the Marriage Acts; [3] the parties may benefit from all the legal consequences such as equitable division of property and pension sharing. [4] A void marriage fails one of the 'essential requirements' in the Marriage Act; [5] a decree of nullity can be granted which allows the parties to get the same financial remedies as on divorce. A voidable marriage is one that can be annulled at the option of one of the parties if one of the grounds are met. [6] A 'non-marriage' is outside the Marriage Acts, with the parties treated as a cohabiting couple. [7]

Facts

Mrs. Ahkter and Mr. Khan had taken part in an Islamic marriage ceremony at a London restaurant in 1998. It was common ground that the ceremony did not meet the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949 and therefore was not a valid marriage. Knowing that, they had intended to follow it with a civil ceremony compliant with English law. However, no such ceremony was performed, despite Mrs. Ahkter pressing for one. The couple subsequently had three children, and the wife petitioned for divorce in 2016. The "husband" defended, and the Attorney General intervened in the proceedings.

The issue was whether the 1998 ceremony created a "non-marriage" (which Mr. Khan and the Attorney General argued), or whether it created a void marriage in respect of which a decree of nullity could be pronounced, thereby entitling the wife to apply for financial remedy orders, which Mrs. Ahkter argued. There were therefore two questions: (1) whether there were ceremonies which could create "non-marriages"; (2) if there were, whether the 1998 ceremony created a non-marriage or a void marriage.

Judgments

Family court

In NA v MSK [2018] EWFC 54, Williams J held that by reason of the husband's actions, there was no valid marriage. [8] The starting point in relation to the interpretation and application of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s11 stemmed from A v A [2012] EWHC 2219. He also considered the Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, stating:

'In this case where the husband led the wife to believe that they would undertake a civil ceremony as part of the process of marrying and has thus left her in the situation where she does not have a marriage which is valid under English law the husband himself has infringed her right to marry.' [9]

What brought a ceremony within the scope of the Marriage Act 1949 had to be approached on a case-by-case basis. [10] When considering the question of a marriage the court had to take a holistic view of a process rather than a single ceremony, taking into account whether: the ceremony or event set out or purported to be a lawful marriage, including whether the parties had agreed that the necessary legal formalities would be undertaken; it bore all or enough of the hallmarks of marriage including whether it was in public, whether it was witnessed, whether promises were made; the three key participants, most importantly the officiating official, believed, intended and understood the ceremony as giving rise to the status of lawful marriage; the failure to complete all the legal formalities was a joint decision or due to the failure of one party to complete them. [11] Williams J granted a decree of nullity using this approach. [12] Mr. Khan appealed.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal (with Sir Terence Etherton MR, King LJ and Moylan LJ) allowed the appeal. There was "no ceremony in respect of which a decree of nullity could be granted" pursuant to the provisions of s11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. [13]

Whether a court could grant a decree of nullity on the ground that a marriage was void was to be determined by the provisions of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s11 and the Marriage Act 1949. S11(a)(iii) applied only where the parties had intermarried according to the rites of the Church of England, under s25 of the 1949 Act or intermarried under s49, but had failed to comply with the formalities non-compliance with which ss25 and 49 expressly stipulated would make the marriage void. [14] The Court of Appeal also held:

"As referred to above, however, we agree with observations that have been made about the unsatisfactory nature of the expression “non-marriage”. We consider that the focus should be on the ceremony and would propose that they should be called a “non-qualifying ceremony” to signify that they are outside the scope of both the 1949 and the 1973 Acts." [15]

The right to marry under Article 12 was not engaged; even if it was, the facts did not give rise to any breach (considering Owens v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182):

"This court is bound by Owens ... It being “irrefutable” that there is no absolute right to be divorced under Article 12, the question is whether Article 12 applies to nullity. In our judgment it does not. Logic alone would dictate this to be the case but, in any event, casting back to the ECtHR’s words in Johnston, if Article 12 cannot cover ‘the dissolution of a marriage”, it cannot cover a situation where a marriage is declared null and void ab initio. In our judgment, counsel at first instance were right in their joint view that Article 12 has no place in this case." [16]

Also, even though Article 8 was engaged, the state's failure to recognize the marriage did not breach the right. The right or grant of a degree of nullity does not itself engage Article 8, which means that there is no right to divorce. [17] The court considered Williams J's reasoning to contradict the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1970, s1, which abolished any legal effect of a promise to marry as no agreement to marry can take effect as a contract. [18] It concludes:

"In addition, the question of whether a marriage is void must, in our view, depend on the facts as they were at the date of the alleged marriage. A marriage either is or is not void and either is or is not within the scope of the 1949 Act at the date of its alleged solemnisation. The determination of whether a marriage is void or not cannot, in our view, be wholly (or in part) dependent on future events, such as the intention to undertake another ceremony or whether there are children. There is no basis, under Article 8 or by virtue of the impact of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 (“UNCRC”), by which the legal effect of the same ceremony could be converted including from a non-marriage to a void marriage." [19]

Considering the above, the Nikah was a non-qualifying ceremony: the fact that the parties had intended to undertake a civil ceremony at a later date could not bring the Nikah ceremony within the scope of the 1949 Act. Therefore, Mrs. Ahkter was not entitled to a decree of nullity, nor financial remedies. [20] The ceremony was not performed in a registered building and no notice had been given to the superintendent registrar. Also, no certificates had been issued and no registrar or authorised person was present. Finally, the parties were aware that the Nikah had no legal effect and failed to take a subsequent ceremony to make their marriage valid. [20]

Reactions

The case had generated much media attention and was criticized for failing to protect Muslim women who have no rights when it comes to divorce. [1] [2] [21] [22] Southall Black Sisters warned that the judgment would "outsource" justice on family matters to unaccountable and fundamentalist-inspired community-based systems of religious arbitration; it considered the matter not about recognising religious marriages; it is about the state guaranteeing equality to all before the law. [2] The Guardian had supported Williams J's original judgment, considering that it allowed married women to gain rights without "violating anyone's religious conscience". [23]

Tristan Cummings at Merton College, Oxford similarly criticized the Court of Appeal's judgment for over-relying on technical correctness rather than the "long-standing and ongoing hardships faced by religious minorities in a family law system historically constructed around Anglican family norms". [24] [25] Siddique Patel, on the other hand, considered the Court of Appeal to be more in line with the law and public policy grounds; however, he has called for reform in the law of unregistered faith marriages. [26] [27]

The Law Commission has published a Consultation Paper on proposals for reform to "modernise and improve" wedding law. [28] [29]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Annulment</span> Legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void

Annulment is a legal procedure within secular and religious legal systems for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is usually retroactive, meaning that an annulled marriage is considered to be invalid from the beginning almost as if it had never taken place. In legal terminology, an annulment makes a void marriage or a voidable marriage null.

Incidental questions in private international law with respect to the problems and elements discussed below. In the Roman conflict of laws, an incidental question is a legal issue that arises in connection with the major cause of action in a lawsuit. The forum court will have already decided that it has jurisdiction to hear the case and will be working through the next two stages of the conflict process, namely: characterisation and choice of law. For example, the court may classify the cause as "succession", but it notes that the plaintiff brings the claim for relief as the deceased's widow. Before the court can adjudicate on the main issue, it must first decide whether the plaintiff actually has the status claimed, i.e. the incidental question would be the validity of the claimed marriage. The inconvenient reality is that many lawsuits involve a number of interdependent legal issues. In purely domestic cases, this poses no difficulty because a judge will freely move from one domestic law to another to resolve the dispute. But in a conflict case, the question is whether the incidental question is resolved by reference either to its own choice of law rules, or to the same law that governs the main issue. States have not formulated a consistent answer to this question.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legitimate expectation</span> Legal doctrine regarding provided rights and services

The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person. It is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness, and seeks to prevent authorities from abusing power.

In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:

Conflict of marriage laws is the conflict of laws with respect to marriage in different jurisdictions. When marriage-related issues arise between couples with diverse backgrounds, questions as to which legal systems and norms should be applied to the relationship naturally follow with various potentially applicable systems frequently conflicting with one another.

Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).

A defender of the bond is a Catholic Church official whose duty is to defend the marriage bond in the procedure prescribed for the hearing of matrimonial causes which involve the validity or nullity of a marriage already contracted. In current Canon Law the role is provided for in Book VII, Title 1, which deals with marriage processes.

In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an annulment and less commonly a decree of nullity, and in some cases, a Catholic divorce, is an ecclesiastical tribunal determination and judgment that a marriage was invalidly contracted or, less frequently, a judgment that ordination was invalidly conferred.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nullity of Marriage Act 1971</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Nullity of Marriage Act 1971 was an act that defined valid reasons for annulment according to British law. This act was the first time in British law that marriage was explicitly defined by statute as being between a male and a female. A marriage could therefore be annulled if the partners were not respectively male and female.

A void marriage is a marriage that is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A void marriage is invalid from its beginning, and is generally treated under the law as if it never existed and requires no formal action to terminate. In some jurisdictions a void marriage must still be terminated by annulment, or an annulment may be required to remove any legal impediment to a subsequent marriage. A marriage that is entered into in good faith, but that is later found to be void, may be recognized as a putative marriage and the spouses as putative spouses, with certain rights granted by statute or common law, notwithstanding that the marriage itself is void.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Law of Property Act 1989 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament, which laid down a number of significant revisions to English property law.

Until 1975, some marriages in Australia were voidable under Australian family law. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth.) abolished the concept of a voidable marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polygamy in the United Kingdom</span>

Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the United Kingdom, and if a polygamous marriage is performed, the already-married person may be guilty of the crime of bigamy under section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marriage Act 1949</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Marriage Act 1949 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom regulating marriages in England and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law</span> Singapores application of legal concept to protect the exercise of executive power

Exclusion of judicial review has been attempted by the Parliament of Singapore to protect the exercise of executive power. Typically, this has been done though the insertion of finality or total ouster clauses into Acts of Parliament, or by wording powers conferred by Acts on decision-makers subjectively. Finality clauses are generally viewed restrictively by courts in the United Kingdom. The courts there have taken the view that such clauses are, subject to some exceptions, not effective in denying or restricting the extent to which the courts are able to exercise judicial review. In contrast, Singapore cases suggest that ouster clauses cannot prevent the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of executive power where authorities have committed jurisdictional errors of law, but are effective against non-jurisdictional errors of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matrimonial Causes Act 1973</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is an act of the United Kingdom governing divorce law and marriage in England and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ouster clause</span> Type of clause in legislation

An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.

<i>Macleod v Macleod</i>

Macleod v Macleod [2008] UKPC 64 was a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal originating from the Isle of Man. It made clear that postnuptial agreements in the Isle of Man cannot be varied by a court other than for sufficient policy reasons. Although technically only applying to Manx postnuptial agreements, the judgment is treated with authority in the United Kingdom.

<i>Owens v Owens</i> 2018 Supreme Court of the UK case

Owens v Owens[2018] UKSC 41 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case involving the divorce of Mr and Mrs Owens, a couple who had married in 1978. The Supreme Court upheld a decision made at trial, and previously upheld by the Court of Appeal, to refuse a contested divorce petition by Mrs Owens, on the basis that the trial judge could not conclude that Mr Owens's behaviour towards his wife amounted to behaviour so unreasonable that a reasonable person could not be expected to live with him. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal expressed regret at not being able to grant the divorce petition, and public reaction to the perceived unfairness Mrs Owens was placed in led to the passage of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020.

References

  1. 1 2 "Islamic faith marriages not valid in English law, appeal court rules". The Guardian. 14 February 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  2. 1 2 3 SBS (14 February 2020). "PRESS RELEASE: Akhter v Khan". Southall Black Sisters. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  3. ↑ [2020] EWCA 122 [11]
  4. ↑ See ss21-22 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
  5. ↑ Ss25, 49 Marriage Act 1949
  6. ↑ S12 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
  7. ↑ "What is a non-marriage?". www.familylaw.co.uk. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
  8. ↑ [2018] EWFC 54 [29]
  9. ↑ [2018] EWFC 54 [83]
  10. ↑ [2018] EWFC 54 [58]-[59]
  11. ↑ [2018] EWFC 54 [92]-[94]
  12. ↑ [2018] EWFC 54 [95]-[97]
  13. ↑ [2020] EWCA Civ 122 (Sir Terence Etherton MR) [128]
  14. ↑ [2020] EWCA Civ 122 [48]-[50]
  15. ↑ [2020] EWCA Civ 122 [64]
  16. ↑ [2020] EWCA Civ 122 [81]-[82]
  17. ↑ [2020] EWCA Civ 122 [106]
  18. ↑ [2020] EWCA Civ 122 [105]
  19. ↑ [2020] EWCA Civ 122 [103]
  20. 1 2 [2020] EWCA Civ 122 [123]-[128]
  21. ↑ Nuttall, JMW Solicitors-Cara (14 February 2020). "Court ruling on Islamic Nikah ceremony - first thoughts | Lexology". www.lexology.com. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  22. ↑ Fouzder2020-02-14T17:14:00+00:00, Monidipa. "Couple's Islamic ceremony 'did not create a marriage' – Court of Appeal". Law Gazette. Retrieved 5 March 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  23. ↑ Editorial (6 August 2018). "The Guardian view on Muslim marriage: one way forward | Editorial". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  24. ↑ Cummings, Tristan (September 2020). "Gendered dimensions and missed opportunities in Akhter v Khan (Attorney-General and others intervening)". Child and Family Law Quarterly.
  25. ↑ "Akhter v Khan: Recognising (or not recognising) religious marriages in the UK". OHRH. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  26. ↑ "Court of Appeal clarifies the law on marriage formalities (Akhter v Khan)". www.familylaw.co.uk. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  27. ↑ "Why the UK's marriage laws are hopelessly out of date - Siddique Patel". www.yorkshirepost.co.uk. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  28. ↑ "Weddings | Law Commission" . Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  29. ↑ "Law Commission proposals for reform to weddings law". www.familylaw.co.uk. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.