Case Update (6 Jan 2026): KLD v. SBPH; Sri Lankan divorce decree, entered without notice or due process, is not entitled to recognition as a matter of comity

The parties were married in Sri Lanka in 1981, and are parents to two children (presumably now adults). They resided together for several years in Sri Lanka. In 1991, the Defendant Husband immigrated to the United States and resided in NY at the time of this action. The Plaintiff Wife and children immigrated in 2000, taking up residence in Chicago, and seeking asylum, which precluded her from traveling outside of the USA without jeopardizing her status. The parties decided to divorce in July 2001. Apparently, thereafter, a Sri Lankan court entered a divorce decree. The Wife “unequivocally denies any participation” in those proceedings. She claims to have never been served, never personally appeared, never retained a Sri Lankan attorney, and was not physically present in Sri Lanka at any time in 2001 (presumably because of her pending asylum application). She argued that there was a lack of due process afforded her in the Sri Lankan proceedings. She learned of the Sri Lankan divorce only after filing for divorce in New York. She further avers that the foreign divorce decree contained false statements, claiming she was present, represented and received funds.

“New York courts will generally recognize a foreign divorce decree only where the decree was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon notice, and with an opportunity for the adverse party to be heard. The Court of Appeals has made clear that comity must be withheld where recognition would sanction a judgment obtained through fraud, without jurisdiction, or in derogation of basic due process.”

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Richmond County concluded that the Wife demonstrated she had no due process - that she “was unable, as a matter of law and practical necessity, to travel abroad” - and the Sri Lankan decree was not recognized as a matter of comity. “The Defendant’s reliance upon the facial validity of the Sri Lankan decree is insufficient. Facial regularity does not cure the absence of jurisdiction, nor does it substitute for proof of notice and participation.” Furthermore, the court expressed concern about the Wife’s claim to fraud, and noted that recognizing a foreign divorce decree under those circumstances would offend the strong public policy of New York.