In re Marriage of Basith, 2019 IL App (2d) 180332-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Basith, 2019 IL App (2d) 180332‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Apr. 15, 2019) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Tanveer Basith. Respondent‑Appellee: Abuzaffer Basith.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly dismissed Petitioner’s Illinois dissolution petition under a Section 2‑619 motion based on recognition/comity of a prior Indian divorce decree.
- Whether a foreign divorce decree entered without notice or opportunity to be heard may be recognized where its terms conflict with Illinois public policy (marital property division and maintenance).
- Standard of review for comity and for a Section 2‑619 dismissal.

3. Holding/outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by granting comity to the Indian decree and dismissing the Illinois dissolution petition where Petitioner lacked notice and opportunity to be heard and the decree’s terms were inconsistent with Illinois law on equitable property division and maintenance.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Section 2‑619 motions admit well‑pleaded facts and inferences; dismissal is improper if factual issues remain or legal prerequisites for recognition are unmet.
- Comity permits recognition of foreign judgments only where the foreign tribunal had competent jurisdiction and recognition does not violate the forum’s laws or public policy. Lack of personal jurisdiction (no notice/opportunity to appear) is fatal.
- The Indian tribunal did not afford Tanveer notice or a hearing; thus it lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The appellate court emphasized fundamental due process (notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties — Armstrong v. Manzo).
- The Indian decree awarded Petitioner about $447 and no maintenance despite long marriage and disparate earnings — inconsistent with the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act’s requirement for division in “just proportions” and equitable maintenance where appropriate. Recognition would offend Illinois public policy.
- Trial court improperly relied on assumptions about religious/sharia practices and the parties’ choices in India rather than Illinois law and due process protections.

5. Practice implications
- Challenge recognition of foreign divorce decrees where service, notice, or opportunity to be heard is absent; emphasize lack of personal jurisdiction and public‑policy conflicts with IMDMA (property division, maintenance).
- If seeking to uphold a foreign decree, develop a record proving valid service/consent and that the decree’s outcomes comport with Illinois standards of equity.
- Trial courts should analyze comity claims against due process and state statutory requirements rather than assume foreign procedures control; appellate courts will reverse dismissals that shortcut those analyses.
- Note: this is a Rule 23, non‑precedential decision; persuasive for similar fact patterns but not binding precedent.