High court recognises sharia marriage in law

Judge rules woman must be allowed to make a claim on husband’s assets

Sharia has been recognised by a British court for the first time after a judge made a landmark divorce ruling that could change the way Islamic marriage works in most of the UK. The High Court yesterday ruled an estranged couple’s Islamic marriage, in a ceremony called a nikah, fell under British matrimonial law. It means the woman in the marriage will be free to take her case to the divorce courts and claim her share of the assets from the union, which she previously would have been denied.

SHARIA has been recognised by a British court for the first time after a judge made a landmark divorce ruling yesterday that could change the way Islamic marriage works in this country.

The High Court ruled an estranged couple’s Islamic marriage, conducted in a ceremony called a nikah, fell under British matrimonial law.

It means the wife will be free to bring her case to the divorce court and claim her share of the assets of her marriage, which she previously would have been denied.

The judge said the marriage of Nasreen Akhtar and businessman Mohammed Shabaz Khan should be recognised because the couple, who married in 1998, lived as husband and wife, introduced each other as such and had expectations similar to a British marriage contract.

The case will have significant implications for women who marry under sharia but not British law and it could give them the right to divorce their husbands and split their assets, as well as being able to secure a divorce more easily.

A report commissioned by Theresa May when she was home secretary revealed earlier this year that many women in Islamic marriages did not realise they had no legal protection under UK law unless they had a second civil ceremony alongside the nikah.

Under sharia, women often have to appeal to sharia councils, largely made up of men, in order to be released from their union and some have to make concessions in order to do so. Men are not obliged to do the same.

In the High Court, Mr Khan sought to block Mrs Akhtar’s divorce action on the basis that they were never legally married. But Mr Justice Williams decided that the marriage was “entered into in disregard of certain requirements as to the formation of marriage”.

He said the marriage was therefore “void” and that Mrs Akhtar was entitled to a decree of nullity. If he had ruled it was a “non-marriage”, she would have been unable to make a case in the British divorce court.

The judge heard that the couple, who have a Pakistani background, had lived in London, Birmingham and Dubai and had a nikah ceremony at a restaurant in Southall, west London.

Mrs Akhtar said the ceremony was conducted by an imam before 150 guests.

Hazel Wright, a lawyer for Hunters Solicitors in London, said: “The law on cohabitation in this country is out of date and unsatisfactory. Now those who would have been outside the scope of the law can be helped to seek compensation in the courts if their spouse has deliberately refused to have a civil ceremony after a religious ceremony.

“Ms Akhtar and Mr Khan both knew their sharia marriage was not legally registered. It became vital for Ms Akhtar that the English divorce court rule that the marriage should be recognised as void, and not a non-marriage, otherwise she would not have any rights to make any financial claims for herself.

“The ruling … has given heart to many who otherwise suffer discrimination.”