Skip to comments.Lake County Judge Wrong To Accept Sharia Divorce: Appeals Court-inconsistent w/concepts of fairness
Posted on 04/25/2019 8:04:06 AM PDT by SJackson
Judge Raymond Collins abused his discretion by accepting an Indian divorce that was "inconsistent with Illinois concepts of fairness."
ELGIN, IL An state appeals court ruled last week that a Lake County judge wrongly accepted a divorce conducted in India under Islamic law. In a judgement filed April 12, a panel of the 2nd District Illinois Appeals Court found that Associate Judge Raymond Collins "did not consider American law and fundamental precepts of due process" in the case of a Gurnee couple's divorce.
Abuzaffer Basith, 70, traveled to India in May 2017 and obtained a certificate for divorce from his wife Tanveer, 65. The couple had been married since 1979 in India but had lived in Illinois ever since, according to Ms. Basith's attorney. They are U.S. citizens, Illinois residents and the parents of six children.
Under the terms of an Indian Sharia court's judgement, Ms. Basith was awarded 31,000 rupees about $447. She argued she was never given the chance to appear and present her case and filed for divorce in Lake County court in September 2017.
Mr. Basith asked for the Lake County divorce petition to be dismissed, arguing the divorce had already been resolved. Judge Collins agreed, even though Mr. Basith's attorney admitted Ms. Basith was never given notice of the Indian proceedings.
"Well, it may be egregious, in that the disposition of property may not have been equitable, but I don't think I have any choice but to dismiss," Collins said at a hearing. He said he assumed if the Basiths had gotten married under the jurisdiction of an Indian religious court, it would continue to have jurisdiction.
Justice Justice Mary Seminara-Schostok disagreed, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel.
"As the Indian tribunal's decision was inconsistent with Illinois concepts of fairness and equity, the trial court should not have granted it comity," Schostok said, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel.
The appellate court found Collins' ruling "troubling" and admonished him for his "carelessness in rendering [his] decision," which has "caused an unnecessary year-long delay in the proceedings" where Ms. Basith has had to wait for her rights under Illinois law.
The order "strongly encourage[d]" Collins, who was first appointed in 2004 and has been since been reappointed three times, "to be more cognizant of the parties' fundamental rights and controlling case law before dismissing an action." Judge Raymond D. Collins (Lake County Courts, 2004)
The order was filed according to Rule 23 in Illinois courts, which means it is nonprecendential and noncitable for any unrelated future cases. It means a Lake County court will re-open proceedings on Ms. Basith's petition for divorce that had been dismissed about a year to the day prior to its issuance.
Mervate Mohammad, Ms. Basith's attorney, said after Mr. Basith returned from India, he soon changed the locks and remarried.
"He just took advantage of the Sharia law over there to make sure that he got his rights and denied her hers," Mohammad said.
According to the appellate court's summary of the case, Mr. Basith argued he got the petition after his wife had asked for a divorce. He said he went to India to grant her request, asserting he and his wife were pious Muslims and the trial court had the right to consider Sharia law. But none of his arguments meant "a foreign decree should be recognized if a party did not have notice and an opportunity to defend her interest," the appellate court found.
Mr. Basith's attorney, Dwayne Douglas, did not immediately return a message requesting comment
Mohammad said she intended to file a motion seeking to make the order a binding opinion to make sure it can be used in future rulings.
"If you allowed people to go to whatever country that they once lived in, or wherever they got married in, then essentially whoever wanted a divorce wouldn't even have to file in the United States," said Mohammad. "They could just fly over to whatever country that benefits them and just get divorced there and come back and say, 'Ha, ha! I'm divorced and I don't have to give you anything.'"
Interesting, the court appears to be saying Sharia is inconsistant with fairness. At least Illinois fairness.
They’re Indians so 31,000 rupees? How much is that in beads?
>>>Interesting, the court appears to be saying Sharia is inconsistant with fairness. At least Illinois fairness.
Yeah interesting. But allah believers will probably use religious discrimination as a recourse in a land/majority of non-believers. i.e. our freedoms against us, further allah is perfect while man-made are not
Uh...how about just plain inconsistent with the law.
What was the size of the estate that he tried to cheat his wife out of? And is her share still recoverable after this scam and a year? The judge involved should resign in disgrace.
It’s a form of reverse psychology. The appeals court over-turned the local court which the husband can now appeal to the State Supreme Court. If the State Supremes allow the original verdict to stand then they will endorse Sharia law as precedent. Of course both parties will then be able to appeal that decision to the USSC.
This is how the libs have been using the courts for decades to fundamentally change this country.
Maybe the judge simply didn’t want to be beheaded? What’s wrong with that?
If history is any metric, the estate was roughly equal to the size of Manhattan.
Seems we need to find a way to overturn judge appointments. How about term limits for ALL governmental appointments?
It is called Friendly Fire.
interesting how the media does not ask our 2 newest congresswomen from ISIS how they feel about this decision. wouldn’t want to make them uncomfortable about Islam’s treatment of feminists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.