Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

DIVORCE: Akhtar v Rafiq [2006] 1 FLR 27

Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Slug : akhtar-v-rafiq-2006-1-flr-27
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 28, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88517

(Family Division; Bodey J; 28 June 2005)

The husband and wife underwent an arranged marriage in England. Four years later the wife returned to Pakistan without her husband and there she remained. The husband went through an Islamic form of divorce at a local mosque and then issued divorce proceedings, giving an address in Pakistan for the purposes of service. The acknowledgment of service form stated that the petition had been received and signed by a thumbprint by the wife. The husband identified the thumb impression as his wife's and a decree absolute was made. The wife later served a divorce petition on the husband. The county court revealed that a decree absolute had already been made. The wife sought a declaration that the decree absolute was void. The High Court declared that the decree nisi and decree absolute were void. On the basis of the evidence, there was no proper service of the husband's petition. The Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (SI 1991/1247) as to service should be properly complied with so that, prior to decree nisi, service was properly shown to have taken place or else to have been duly deemed to have taken place or else dispensed with. If not, then even cogent evidence that the respondent was aware of proceedings, although sufficient to satisfy the district judge prior to the specific procedure certificate, should not suffice to save the situation after the event, save in the most exceptional circumstances. See also November [2005] Fam Law 856 for the case report and comment.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from