# Azhar v. Choudhri Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0939 **Azhar v. Choudhri, No. 24-0939 (Tex. Sept. 25, 2026). Holding: A foreign divorce judgment obtained without notice reasonably calculated to apprise the other spouse of the proceeding, here five days of publication in a single obscure outlet with no showing that ordinary means of reaching her were unavailable, is not entitled to comity in a Texas court; the decision turns on case-specific considerations and does not hold that every foreign judgment with different notice procedures is denied comity.** Practice areas: family law, federal constitution ## Key issues - A Pakistani ex parte talaq divorce obtained through five days' publication in a small local newspaper, with no other effort to reach the wife, does not satisfy due process and cannot be recognized by a Texas court under principles of comity. - The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings on the wife's claim to a share of more than $100 million in community assets. ## Factual History Hira Azhar (Wife) married Mohammad Ali Choudhri (Husband) in Pakistan in 2008, when she was eighteen and he was twenty-eight and had lived in Houston since age three; she came to Houston in 2010, and during the marriage the couple amassed over $100 million in community assets (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 2). Wife alleges continuous physical and emotional abuse (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 2). In 2012 Husband sent her to Pakistan, ostensibly to renew her visa, and in January 2013 divorced her there without her knowledge through a talaq proceeding, purporting to serve her only by publishing notice in a small local Pakistani newspaper five days in advance; she learned of the divorce two years later (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 2-3). The trial court heard testimony that Pakistani law bars additional property-division claims and does not recognize community property (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 4). ## Procedural History Wife challenged the divorce in the Pakistani courts, and the Pakistan Supreme Court denied relief in 2018; the parties dispute whether the denial was procedural or substantive (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 4). In June 2015 she filed for divorce and property division in Harris County; after a bench trial on comity, the trial court recognized the Pakistani divorce as effective May 22, 2013, dismissed her divorce petition, and rendered a take-nothing judgment on her claim to the marital estate (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 4; Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 16-18). The First Court of Appeals affirmed on August 31, 2023, and also held that she had not preserved her notice argument (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 4, 11 n.4). This Court denied the petition for review on September 26, 2025, but on rehearing reinstated it on April 17, 2026. It then granted the petition and decided the case per curiam without oral argument on September 25, 2026, with Justice Huddle and Justice Young not participating (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 15). ## Issues Presented Wife presents three issues (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 13): 1. Whether recognizing the Pakistani certificate of divorce was an abuse of discretion for lack of due process, where the divorce was granted ex parte without service or actual notice and could not be cured by later Pakistani appellate review. 2. Whether the court erred in dismissing her claims for community rights and division where no court had ever divided the community estate, since the Pakistani appellate courts held they lacked jurisdiction over her property claims. 3. Whether the court erred in dismissing her community-property claim where no property has ever been decided or apportioned. Husband responds that the court of appeals was bound by her unchallenged findings and conclusions and that she waived her due process, division-of-assets, and partition issues (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 6). ## Standard(s) of Review Comity is a discretionary doctrine that no sovereign is required to extend, and it may not be extended to a foreign judgment that contravenes Texas public policy or fundamental constitutional guarantees (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 5-8, 14). Husband says the court of appeals was bound by unchallenged findings of fact and conclusions of law (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 7). ## Legal Arguments **Whether the Pakistani talaq divorce is entitled to comity.** **Petitioner (Wife):** Talaq divorces have been held unfair to women and contrary to due process by other courts and drew a response from the Attorney General and the Legislature (House Bill 45); she was never served or heard, the divorce was ex parte, and later Pakistani appellate review could not cure the lack of notice, so recognition was an abuse of discretion (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 13, 18-19, 23-26). **Respondent (Husband):** The case is about waiver: Wife did not challenge the findings of fact and conclusions of law that independently support the judgment, the court of appeals was bound by them, and she did not address the court of appeals' holdings in her petition (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 2, 7). **Whether her property claims survive.** **Petitioner (Wife):** The Pakistani appellate decisions held those courts lacked jurisdiction over her claims, and res judicata bars a post-divorce property division only to the extent an asset was actually divided, so her community-property claims remain (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 13). **Respondent (Husband):** An unchallenged conclusion of law supports the dismissal of her division claim, and her Chapter 23 partition claim was waived because she did not brief it in the court of appeals (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 6). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Wife argued that the court of appeals' opinion presents a question of law important to the jurisprudence of the State under Rule 56.1 factors, including that it upheld recognition of a talaq divorce and forfeited rights to a $100 million estate (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 12-13). ## Practice Area Tags family-law, federal-constitution ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the First Court of Appeals, granted after rehearing and decided per curiam without oral argument under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1 on September 25, 2026, with Justice Huddle and Justice Young not participating (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 15). ## Amicus Involvement - [An-Nisa Hope Center](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=98312dcd-d325-4e87-9105-cb5a63362699&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=5643d4d4-8e43-4cd8-839d-e19b9d82a96e) filed an amicus brief. ## Holding A foreign divorce judgment obtained without notice reasonably calculated to apprise the other spouse of the proceeding, here five days of publication in a single obscure outlet with no showing that ordinary means of reaching her were unavailable, is not entitled to comity in a Texas court; the decision turns on case-specific considerations and does not hold that every foreign judgment with different notice procedures is denied comity (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 13-14 and n.5). ## Court's Reasoning **Comity.** No sovereign is obliged to recognize a foreign judgment; comity is discretionary and inappropriate when the foreign judgment contravenes Texas public policy, as *Banco Minero*, *McElreath*, and *Gannon* show, and the Attorney General's 2016 opinion, House Bill 45, and Rule 308b reflect that Texas will not extend comity to judgments entered without due process (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 5-11). Rule 308b did not apply because the Harris County suit was filed in 2015 (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 11 n.3). The Court also rejected the argument that Wife failed to preserve the notice issue, since she squarely argued the Pakistani proceedings were not entitled to comity (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 11 n.4). **Notice.** Due process requires notice "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties," and efforts must reflect those of someone who really wants to find the defendant (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 12-13). Publication violates due process when the defendant's address or location is readily ascertainable and is inadequate when better notice is possible and practicable (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 13). Husband offered no evidence that telephone, text, email, social media, in-person communication, or mutual friends were unavailable, so the record forecloses any finding that he genuinely wanted to notify Wife, and the notice was constitutionally inadequate as a matter of law (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 13-14). **Scope.** The Court did not address other possible grounds for denying comity that Wife raised (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 14 n.6). ## Disposition Petition granted, the court of appeals' judgment reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 15). ## Vote Breakdown Per curiam opinion; Justice Huddle and Justice Young did not participate (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/24-0939. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.