Marriage has long been both a religious and a civil institution. The interaction between the two has always posed certain unique challenges for courts, especially when it comes to religious practices that might affect divorce or child custody. For example, in Islam, marriage is viewed as a contractual undertaking involving an offer, acceptance, and a final agreement known as a mehr. The mehr is traditionally a dowry of gold coins that a husband must give to the wife. It is required by the Quran and incorporated into the civil law of many predominantly Muslim countries

Many Muslims living in the United States have also chosen to include a mehr or similar provisions into their own Islamic marriage ceremonies. But is a mehr enforceable in a Maryland civil divorce? The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has addressed this question a couple of times over the past couple of years.

In 2020, the Court issued its decision in Nouri v. Dadgar, which held that a “religious contract that requires one spouse to make a payment to the other,” such as a mehr, is enforceable “only if, under secular legal principles, the contract satisfies the requirements of an agreement entered into by parties in a confidential relationship.” The Court was careful to emphasize that civil courts may only resolve “secular disputes that arise in religious contexts” if they can do so by applying “neutral principles of law” that do not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the parties involved.

Essentially, this means courts must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular mehr is enforceable under secular principles of contract law. A more recent decision from the Court of Special Appeals, Chaudry v. Chaudry, provides a helpful illustration. In this case, a husband and wife were married in an Islamic ceremony held in Virginia. The parties signed a mehr, which the husband said provided the wife agreed to accept a payment of $10,000 “in lieu of an equitable distribution of property in the event of a divorce.”

The couple separated in 2017. A few weeks later, the wife filed for divorce in Maryland. The trial court refused to enforce the mehr. On appeal, the husband argued it was a valid prenuptial agreement under secular law. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and upheld the trial court’s refusal to enforce the agreement.

The appellate court noted that neither the husband nor the wife actually produced the mehr in court. The parties agreed that they entered into an agreement during their wedding ceremony. But the wife said this was never intended to be a prenuptial agreement. She believed the husband simply agreed to give her $10,000 as a wedding gift, which he never did.

The Court explained that since the husband was the party attempting to enforce the mehr, he had to prove that the agreement was “supported by mutual assent” of the parties. He also had to show that the terms of the agreement were not “overreaching” such that there was “unfairness or inequity in the result of the agreement or its procurement.” Here, the husband failed to offer such proof. Indeed, he could not even establish the “definite” terms of the agreement itself. So as far as secular law was concerned, there was no evidence a valid prenuptial agreement of any type existed.

Contact Charles County, Maryland, Family Law Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.