Husband Secretly Divorced Wife in Pakistan: Texas Supreme Court Rejects Recognition in $100M Dispute

A Pakistani divorce obtained by a Houston businessman without his wife's knowledge cannot be afforded recognition in Texas, the state's Supreme Court has ruled, reviving a dispute involving more than $100 million (£76 million) in community assets. The court found that five days of publication in a small local Pakistani newspaper did not provide Hira Azhar with constitutionally adequate notice.

The case, Azhar v. Choudhri, concerns Mohammad Ali Choudhri and Azhar, who married in Pakistan in 2008 before she joined him in Houston in 2010. According to the judgment, Choudhri sent her to Pakistan in 2012, ostensibly to renew her visa, and divorced her through a unilateral talaq proceeding in January 2013 without informing her. She learned about it roughly two years later.

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Five-Day Notice

The issue was whether Texas should recognise the Pakistani judgment under international comity—the principles governing a court's recognition of another country's judgments.

Recognition is not automatic. A Texas court may refuse to recognise a foreign judgment when it conflicts with fundamental constitutional protections or established public policy.

Choudhri relied on notice published in a small local Pakistani newspaper five days before the proceeding. Azhar did not see it, was not personally served and had no opportunity to participate.

The Supreme Court said Choudhri had provided no evidence that ordinary channels of spousal communication, including telephone calls, text messages, email, social-media messaging, in-person communication or mutual friends, were unavailable.

Choudhri argued that the newspaper notice was adequate. The justices disagreed, concluding that it was not reasonably calculated to inform Azhar of the proceeding under the circumstances.

The court therefore held that the Pakistani divorce judgment could not receive comity in Texas because the process used to obtain it violated fundamental due-process protections.

The $100 Million Property Dispute

The Supreme Court's opinion said the couple accumulated more than $100 million (£76 million) in community assets during their Texas-domiciled marriage. Choudhri had lived in Houston since childhood and built several businesses in the state.

After learning of the divorce, Azhar challenged it in Pakistan. She returned to Houston in June 2015 and filed for divorce in Harris County, seeking a division of the marital estate.

The Pakistan Supreme Court denied her relief in 2018. The parties disputed whether that denial was procedural or substantive, a question the Texas Supreme Court said it did not need to resolve.

The Harris County trial court recognised the Pakistani proceedings and treated the couple as divorced from 22 May 2013. It dismissed Azhar's divorce petition for want of jurisdiction and subsequently denied her claim for division of the marital estate.

The trial court relied on testimony that Pakistani law barred additional property claims and did not recognise community property, instead assigning property according to whose name it was held in. The First Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on 31 August 2023.

The Texas Supreme Court has now reversed that judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. Its decision does not award Azhar any portion of the estate or determine how the assets should be divided.

Why the Ruling Is About Due Process

The opinion discusses Islamic-law divorce procedures and Texas rules governing recognition of foreign judgments. But the court resolved this case on the adequacy of notice, rather than issuing a categorical ruling against talaq divorces.

Mere differences between Texas law and foreign law are not enough, on their own, to defeat recognition. The court said its decision rested on case-specific considerations and did not establish that every foreign judgment using different notice procedures must be rejected.

The decisive issue was whether Azhar had been given meaningful notice and an opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The court found that the newspaper publication did not meet that standard when more direct communication was possible.

The ruling determines whether the Pakistani judgment is entitled to comity in Texas. It does not purport to adjudicate the validity of the divorce under Pakistani law or establish that every divorce obtained abroad under Islamic law is unenforceable in Texas.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court issued its decision on 25 September 2026, reversing the First Court of Appeals and remanding the case to the trial court. It decided the case without oral argument, and Justices Huddle and Young did not participate.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 308b, which establishes procedures for certain cases involving enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitration awards concerning marriage relationships, took effect on 1 January 2018. Because Azhar filed her Harris County action in June 2015, the rule did not apply.

The case now returns to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. The Pakistani judgment cannot be afforded comity on the process at issue here, but the Supreme Court has not decided how the marital estate should be divided.

Azhar can continue pursuing her Texas divorce and property claims. The ruling removes the Pakistani judgment as a basis for upholding the dismissal of those claims; it does not guarantee a particular financial outcome.