¹ Although this article is based on a study of English law it has been necessary to retain references to ‘Britain’ or the ‘UK’ as the context demanded. Readers should note that slightly different situations prevail under English, Northern Irish, and Scots law, however. Where necessary, clarification is provided as to the situation in Scotland. It should be noted that the Scots legal position has largely been unclear given the paucity of case law on the subject, but it will be noted that it now approximates that prevailing in English law.

² ‘Polygamy’ denotes the practice of either women or men taking more than one spouse—known as ‘polyandry’ and ‘polygyny’ respectively. In this article polygamy is used to mean polygyny. This article does not attempt to address the issue of concubinage that is familiar to several Afro-Asian legal systems.

³ The term ‘Afro-Asian’ is used here to mean ‘African and Asian’, and is hence similar to the use of ‘Anglo-American’. It is not meant in the sense of a hyphenated identity such as ‘Scottish-Muslim’ or ‘Italo-American’.

⁴ For a definition of ‘personal law’ see Duncan, JDerrett, M, Religion, Law and the State in India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1968), 39–41.Google Scholar See further, Hooker, M, Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-colonial Laws (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).Google Scholar For the argument that personal law systems pre-date the colonial impact, see Menski, Werner, Comparative Law in a Global Context. The Legal systems of Asia and Africa (London: Platinium, 2000), 131–2.Google Scholar

⁵ Griffiths, John, ‘What is Legal Pluralism?’ (1986) 24 Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ The term ‘official law’ is used by Chiba, Masaji (ed), Asian Indigenous Law in Interaction with Received Law. (KPI: London and New York, 1986), 56 to mean ‘the legal system sanctioned by the legitimate authority of a country’.Google Scholar

⁷ See in detail , Menski, Modern Indian Family Law (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2001), 139–230 on IndiaGoogle Scholar; Hinchcliffe, Doree, ‘Polygamy in Traditional and Contemporary Islamic Law’ (1970) 1 (8) Islam and the Modern Age, 13–38 andGoogle ScholarPearl, David and , Menski, Muslim Family Law, 3rd edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), 237–73Google Scholar on Muslim law in South Asia and elsewhere; and Derrett, J Duncan M, Introduction to Modern Hindu Law (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), 535–56 on Hindu law in East Africa. In Kenya the applicable law is found in the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Ordinance, 1960 and in Uganda in the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Ordinance, 1961.Google ScholarMole, Nuala, Immigration: Family Entry and Settlement (Bristol: Jordan and Sons, 1987), 44 observes that: ‘The form of Hindu and Muslim marriage is broadly the same amongst the East African Asian communities as in the Indian subcontinent except that polygamy is rare amongst East African Asian Muslims and is not condoned by most communities.’Google Scholar For South Asian Muslims, see similarly Salvadori, Cynthia, Through Open Doors. A View of Asian Cultures in Kenya, rev edn (Nairobi: Kenway Publications, 1989), 186 n and Hinchcliffe, op cit, 27–8 who notes the rarity of polygamy among Ismaili Khojas in Africa, and points to a Holy firman issued by the Aga Khan in 1962, contained within part 7 of the Constitution, that forbade the practice.Google Scholar

⁸ Menski, Modern Indian Family Law, 201–2 on Turkey and Tunisia and Ihsan Yilmaz, ‘Dynamic Legal Pluralism and the Reconstruction of Unofficial Muslim laws in England, Turkey and Pakistan’ (unpublished PhD thesis. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1999), 228–34 on Turkey. In the recent case of Hassen v Director of Public Prosecutions (CO/182/97), 30 July 1997, QBD (unreported) a conviction of a Tunisian defendant for ‘bigamy’ was quashed ultimately on the basis that the prosecution had not been based on firm evidence about the legal position in Tunisia, where the defendant had contracted a first marriage. He, however, appeared to maintain that under Tunisian law he was allowed to enter into plural marriage. While not conclusive, this background to the case at least raises the question of the disjunction between the official Tunisian law and personal law.Google Scholar

⁹ [1966] P 233. [1967] 1 All ER 737.

¹⁰ See to similar effect, Pearl, David, Family Law and the Immigrant Communities (Bristol: Jordan and Sons, 1986), 39 andGoogle ScholarHamilton, Carolyn, Family, Law and Religion (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1995), 66.Google Scholar For earlier Hindu cases in British courts see Parashar, Archana, ‘Polygamous Marriage in Conflict of Laws’ (1982) II(3) Islamic and Comparative Law Quarterly 187–208 at 192–3.Google Scholar

¹¹ [1975] QB 885.

¹² Two earlier prosecutions against imams for not following English rules on solemnization, R v Mohamed (Ali) [1964] 2 QB 350 (actually a case from 1943) and R v Bham [1966] 1 QB 159, also involve polygamy in the background, and conclude by effectively de-recognising nikah ceremonies as a condition of avoiding criminal penalties. Another case with similar implications, R v Rahman [1949]2 All ER 165, is a bigamy conviction where the husband already had a first wife in India. This case was formally overruled in Bham. All three cases involved English women marrying South Asian men.

¹³ Menski, Comparative Law.

¹⁴ For earlier potential polygamy cases see Ohochuku v Ohochuku [1960] 1 All ER 253 concerning Nigerian Christians and Sowa v Sowa [1961] 1 All ER 687 concerning Ghanaians.

¹⁵ Phillips, Arthur and Morris, Henry F, Marriage Laws in Africa (London: Oxford University Press, for International African Institute, 1971); Morris, ‘Indirect Rule and the Law of marriage’Google ScholarMorris, HF and Read, James S (eds), Indirect Rule and the Search for Justice. Essays in East African Legal History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 213–50.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Anderson, JND, Islamic law in Africa (London: HMSO, 1954) is a useful source for Islamic law in British-dominated Africa. Phillips(in Phillips and Morris, Marriage Laws in Africa, 86) explains the ‘softer’ attitude adopted by the colonial states in Africa with respect to polygamy: ‘It may be that the policies of the British and French governments have been to some extent influenced by their experience and commitments in other parts of the world (eg, India and North Africa) where Muslim law prevails.’Google Scholar

¹⁷ In Phillips and Morris, Marriage Laws in Africa, 86.

¹⁸ For confirmation of this view in light of social realities in Nigeria, see Iwuji, Emeka, Marriage Form in Nigeria (Rome: Tipolitografia, 1983), and in Ghana, seeGoogle ScholarYeboa, Ken Y, ‘Bigamy and Islamic Marriages in the Law of Ghana: the Legislator's Dilemma or Studied Silence?’ (1933–1995) XIX Review of Ghana Law, 69–83.Google Scholar On the other hand, in African countries where non-Orthodox Christianity has been accepted, a vigorous debate continues about the compatibility of Christian (Catholic) doctrine and traditional African customs including polygamy, particularly since Vatican II in the 1960s: see Kanyadago, Peter M, Evangelizing Polygamous Families. Canonical and African Approaches (Eldoret, Kenya: AMECEA Gaba Publications, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁹ (1886) LR 1, P&D 130 at 133. For discussion see Poulter, Sebastian, English Law and Ethnic Minority Customs (London: Butterworths), 47–51;Google ScholarJones, Richard and Welhengama, Gnanapala, Ethnic Minorities in English Law (Group for Ethnic Minority Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies; Stoke on Trent: Trentham), 109–18.Google Scholar

²⁰ Parashar, ‘Polygamous Marriage’, 206.

²¹ Ibid, 206–7.

²² See similarly Carroll, Lucy, ‘Definition of a ‘Potentially Polygamous’ Marriage in English Law: a Dramatic Decision from the Court of Appeal (>Hussain v Hussain)’ (1984) IV (1–2)Google ScholarIslamic and Comparative Law Quarterly 61–71 at 63 and Hamilton, Family, 69.

²³ Law Commission, Family Law. Report on Polygamous Marriages (London: HMSO, 1972), 14.Google Scholar

²⁴ Poulter, English Law, 55–6

²⁵ Carroll, ‘Definition’, 67.

²⁶ Poulter, English Law, 56.

²⁷ [1982] 1 All ER 369, (1983) 4 FLR 339.

²⁸ Carroll, ‘Definition’, 66–7, Poulter, Englih Law, 56.

²⁹ Ibid, 58.

³⁰ Pearl, Family Law, 46.

³¹ Ibid, 47.

³² Carroll, ‘Definition’, 68–71, Poulter, English Law, 58, Pearl, Family Law, 47.

³³ Law Commission, Private International Law: Polygamous Marriages—Capacity to Contract a Polygamous Marriage and Related Issues. Law Commission Report, No 146, Scottish Law Commission Report No 96 (London: HMSO, 1985).

³⁴ See, eg, Sumeina Masood [1992] Imm AR 69. For comment, see Sachdeva, Sanjiv, The Primary Purpose Rule in British Immigration Law (Group for Ethnic Minority Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies; Stoke on Trent: Trentham, 1993), 155–8;Google Scholar, Menski, ‘South Asian Women in Britain, Family Integrity and the Primary Purpose Rule’, Barot, Rohit, Bradley, Harriet and Fenton, Steve (eds), Ethnicity, Gender and Social Change (Basingstoke: Macmillan and New York: St Martin's Press, 1999), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁵ Poulter, English Law, 60–1; Law Commission, Polygamous Marriages, Capacity to Contract a Polygamous Marriage and the Concept of a Potentially Polygamous Marriage. Law Commission Working Paper No. 83 and the Scottish Law Commission Consultative Memorandum No 56 (London: HMSO, 1982).

³⁶ Law Commission, Private International Law: Polygamous Marriages—Capacity to Contract a Polygamous Marriage and Related Issues (Law Commission Report, No 146, Scottish Law commission Report, No 96 London: HMSO, 1985).

³⁷ Law Commission, Polygamous Marriages, 84.

³⁸ Ibid, 107.

³⁹ Poulter, Sebastian, ‘The Claim to a Separate Islamic system of Personal Law for British Muslims’, Mallat, Chibli and Connors, Jane (eds), Islamic Family Law (London: Graham and Trotman, 1990), 147–66.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Foblets, Marie-Claire, ‘Conflicts of Law in Cross-Cultural Family Disputes in Europe Today. Who Will Reorient Conflicts Law?’, Foblets, Marie-Claire and Strijbosch, Fons (eds), Relations Familiales Interculturells/Cross Cultural Family Relations (Oñati: International Institute for the Sociology of Law, 1999, 27–45;Google ScholarFerrari, Silvio, ‘Introduction’, Ferrari, Silvio and Brandney, Anthony (eds), Islam and European Legal Systems (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000) 1–9 esp. at 6–8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Establishing just what is the ‘personal law’ here may not be a simple exercise. In the context of debates on shari'a not only are there differences as between the schools of law, but also with respect to the place of pre-Islamic customs, and serious consideration may have to be given to the latter and to how they are changing with migration. Salvadori, Through Open Doors, 184–7 explains this for South Asian Muslims in Kenya, and Ballard, Roger, ‘Popular Islam in Northern Pakistan and its Reconstruction in Britain’ (Paper presented at the International Workshop on Islamic Mysticism in the West, Buxton, Derbyshire, 22–24 06 2001, also at: <http://www.casas.org.uk) for South Asian Muslims in Pakistan and Britain.Google Scholar On Muslim law and customs, see Pearl and Menski, Muslim Family Law, 38–43, and for concerns focused on Britain, see Bano, Samia, ‘Muslim south Asian Women and Customary Law in Britain’ 4 Journal of South Pacific Law.Google Scholar

⁴² One line of cases concerns the imputation of polygamy where a prior divorce has not been recognized for failure to comply with the expectations of the official law. Rukshana Begum Choudhury (9665), 20 Jan 1993 (unreported) concerned a refusal to recognise a divorce given to a wife in Bangladesh on the basis that the husband had acquired a domicile in England by that time, and for that reason his subsequent marriage was also not recognized. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal reversed this finding, however, and held that he had never lost his domicile in Bangladesh. In Mohammed A. Hamid (14314), 10 Dec 1996 (unreported) the Immigration Appeal Tribunal heard the appeal of a wife initially refused leave to enter on the basis that her marriage to her Yemeni husband was polygamous. The tribunal held, however, that neither the husband's prior talaq to his long-standing first wife, pronounced before an imam in Liverpool, nor the subsequent marriage at the Liverpool Islamic Cultural Centre, an unregistered building, wee legally effective. See further, Pearland Menski, Muslim Family Law, 382–98 on the problem of recognition of Muslim divorces in Britain; and Jones and Welhengama, Ethnic Minorities, 118–32 and Mayss, Abla, ‘Recognition of Foreign Divorces: Unwarrantable Ethnocentrism’ Murphy, John (ed), Ethnic Minorities, Their Families and the Law (Oxford, UK and Portland, Oregon: Hart, 2000), 51–70 on ethnic minority divorces more generally.Google Scholar

⁴³ Pearl, Family Law, 40.

⁴⁴ Ballard, Roger, ‘The Pakistanis: Stability and Introspection’, Peach, Ceri (ed), Ethnicity in the 1991 Census. Volume Two. The Ethnic Minority Populations of Great Britain (London: HMSO, 1996), 121–49, at 126.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See also , Ballard, ‘Migration and Kinship: the differential Effect of Marriage Rules on the Processes of Punjabi Migration to Britain’, Clarke, Colin, Peach, Ceri, and Vertovec, Steven (eds), South Asians Overseas. Migration and Ethnicity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 219–49.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ballard, Roger, ‘Introduction: the Emergence of Desh Pardesh’, , Ballard (ed), Desh Pardesh. The South Asian Presence in Britain (London: Hurst & co, 1994), 1–34 at 20.Google Scholar See also Juss, Satvinder S, Discretion and Deviation in the Administration of Immigration Control (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), 47–8 to similar effectGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Gardner, Katy and Shukur, Abdus, ‘“I'm Bengali, I'm Asian, and I'm living here”. The Changing Identity of British Bengalis’, , Ballard (ed), Desh Pardesh, 142–64, at 150.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Eade, John, Vamplew, Tim, and Peach, Ceri ‘The Bangladeshis: the Encapsulated Community’, , Peach (ed), Ethnicity in the 1991 Census. Volume Two. The Ethnic Minority Populations of Great Britain (London: HMSO, 1996), 150–60, at 151.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ballard, ‘Introduction’, 20.

⁵⁰ Ballard, Desh Pardesh. For Bangladeshis specifically see, Gardner, Katy, Global Migrants, Local Lives. Travel and Transformation in Rural Bangladesh (Oxford: clarendon Press, 1995), 114–21.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Sachdeva, The Primary Purpose Rule, 108–11; Juss, Discretion.

⁵² Pearl, Family Law, 40–1.

⁵³ Law Commission, Polygamous Marriages, 47–8. For more recent developments see Macdonald, Ian A and Webber, Frances (eds), Immigration Law and Practice in the United Kingdom (London: Butterworths, 2001), 423–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Law Commission, Polygamous Marriages, 52.

⁵⁵ Ibid, 47–8.

⁵⁶ Pearl, Family Law, 48.

⁵⁷ [1979–80] Imm AR 48; Pearl, Family Law, 42–3.

⁵⁸ In this case, it appears that the son could not benefit from the Legitimacy Act 1976 as the application pre-dated the statute.

⁵⁹ Pearl, Family Law, 43.

⁶⁰ Johanara Begum and Others v ECO, Dacca (1261), 9 June 1978, and Arifun Nessa and Others v Eco, Dacca(3392), 1984 (both unreported); Pearl, Family Law, 43.

⁶¹ HC 81 (1973), para 37, equivalent paragraphs also to be found in other Rules in force at the time.

⁶² (1261), 9 June 1978.

⁶³ At [1979–80] Imm AR 51.

⁶⁴ (1642), 5 Nov 1979 (unreported).

⁶⁵ Pearl, Family Law, 43, 45.

⁶⁶ Fransman, Laurie, British Nationality Law (London: Fourmat, 1989), 204.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ (3080), 1984 (unreported); Pearl, Family Law, 44.

⁶⁸ Ibid, 44–5; Fransman, British Nationality, 204. There appears to be a parallel between this line of cases and the early liberal approach of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to appeals against the application of the primary purpose rule, which later became significantly tighter, see Sachdeva, The Primary Purpose Rule.

⁶⁹ [1983] Imm AR 163.

⁷⁰ [1986] Imm AR 461.

⁷¹ [1985] 2 All ER 733.

⁷² Rafika Bibi (4603) (unreported); see Mole Immigration, 42–3.

⁷³ [1989] Imm AR 1.

⁷⁴ The approach was followed in Sofura Bibi (8601), 24 Feb 1992 (unreported), in another case involving a marriage entered into prior to 1 Aug 1971.

⁷⁵ Another reason for refusal continued to cause problems, however. This was the contradiction that was often apparent in sponsors declaring that they saw the UK as their future home for the purpose of supporting their spouse's settlement application, and the same information then being used by ECOs to argue that the sponsor's domicile of origin had therefore been lost, leading to a declaration of invalidity of the marital relationship. Refusals based on this line of reasoning were, however, successfully challenged before the Tribunal in Rukhsana Begum Chowdhury (9965), 20 Jan 1993, and before Sedley J in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Miah (CO/2100/92), 14 June 1994 (both unreported). See, further, Jackson, David, Immigration: Law and Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1999), 58 and Macdonald and Webber, Immigration Law and Practice, 423–4.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Juss, Discretion.

⁷⁷ Sachdeva, The Primary Purpose Rule.

⁷⁸ See, in detail, , Fransman, ‘Family Settlement Cases: a Denial of Statutory Rights’ (1986) 1(1) Immigration and Nationality Law and Practice 5–15; Fransman, British Nationality, 210–31.Google ScholarPubMed

⁷⁹ Fransman, British Nationality, 215.

⁸⁰ Sachdeva, The Primary Purpose Rule, 40.

⁸¹ The requirement to maintain and accommodate immigrating family members were introduced by changes in the Immigration Rules, HC 503 (1985): see Sachdeva, The Primary Purpose Rule, 91–100. They became crucial in practice after the 1988 Act. On this and more generally on the impact of the 1988 Act, see Shah, Prakash A ‘Bangladeshis in English Law’ (Paper Presented at Conference on ‘Bangladeshis in Britain: Changes and Choices, Configurations and Perspectives’, 24 and 25 05 2002, London guildhall UniversityGoogle Scholar, also at <http://www.casas.org.uk>).

⁸² These came into force on 1 Aug 1988 as amendments to the then prevailing statement HC 169, paras 1B–1D; see Moss, Peter RH, ‘Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 555: a Note for Practitioners’ (1988) 3 (3) Immigration and Nationality Law and Practice 54–6. The same were later to be incorporated in HC 251 (1990), paras 3–5 and are currently to be found in HC 394 (1994), paras 278–80 with some amendment.Google Scholar

⁸³ HC Debs, vol 122, col 785.

⁸⁴ Ibid, col 189.

⁸⁵ Stuart Randall MP, HC Debs, vol 122, col 846.

⁸⁶ Ibid, col 826.

⁸⁷ See Poulter, ‘The Claim to a Separate Islamic System’; Poulter, Sebastian, ‘Multiculturalism and Human Rights for Muslim Families in English Law’, King, Michael (ed), God's Law Versus State Law. The Construction of an Islamic Identity in Western Europe (London: Grey Seal, 1995), 81–7; Hamilton, Family, 71–3.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Jackson, Immigration, 57. Macdonald and Webber, Immigration Law and Practice, 418 discuss polygamous marriages as one of the areas, together with the recognition of talaq divorces, where there were ‘particular problems likely to be encountered in immigration cases’.

⁸⁹ [1995] Imm AR 249.

⁹⁰ [1994] Imm AR 326, QBD.

⁹¹ Zeenat Bibi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1994] Imm AR 550.

⁹² [1996] Imm AR 582.

⁹³ HC 395 (1994), para 296.

⁹⁴ Menski, , ‘Family Migration and the New Immigration Rules’ (1994) 8(4) Immigration and Nationality Law and Practice 112–24, at 118.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ [2001] INLR 109 [2001] Imm AR 318.

⁹⁶ Pearl, Family Law, 48.

⁹⁷ , Prakash Shah, ‘Children of Polygamous Marriage: an Inappropriate Response’ (2002) 16(2) Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 110–13.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Appl. 19628/92, Bibi v UK (Dec) 29 June 1992.

⁹⁹ Reid, KarenA Practitioners' Guide to the European Convention of Human Rights (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), 277.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ This case law of the commission obviously assumes importance at the domestic level given the Human Rights Act 1998. One may speculate on this basis what the European Court of Justice may make of an application to include a polygamously married wife as a ‘spouse’ for the purposes of European community law, for example, under Reg 1612/68 on the free movement of workers.

¹⁰¹ Lewis, Philip, Islamic Britain. Religion, Politics and Identity among British Muslims (London: IB Tauris, 1994), 2–7, in his Bradford-focused study, highlights education and the burning of the Satanic Verses as the two most prominent features publicly connected with Muslims in the Britain of the 1980s.Google Scholar Both issues had their legal impacts in different ways. The Education Reform Act of 1988 sought to reinforce the notion that worship and religious education in English schools ought to reflect Christian traditions: see Bradney, A, ‘The Dewsbury Affair and the Education Reform Act 1988’ (1989) 1(2) Education and the law 51–7. The Satanic Verses affair meanwhile led to a debate on the scope of English blasphemy law: see Jones and Welhengama, Ethnic Minorities, 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰² Pearl and Menski, Muslim Family Law, 74–7.

¹⁰³ It appears that the long-standing ambiguity about the position of persons deemed to have acquired Scottish domicile prior to a second marriage has been resolved by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in favour of following the English approach, that is, to treat the second marriage as void—see Abida Naseem (11415), 12 Oct 1994 (unreported), The case is arguably superseded now by the Private International Law (Miscellaneos Provisions) Act 1995, section 7, to similar effect however (see text at III.A.).

¹⁰⁴ Pearl and Menski, Muslim Family Law, 77–80; Yilmaz, Dynamic Legal Pluralism. The growing literature about alternative dispute resolution offered by shari'a councils of various types in Britain testifies to the widening chasm between Muslims and the official legal system. see Badawi, Zaki, ‘Muslim Justice in a Secular State’, , Michael King (ed), God's Law Versus State Law The Construction of an Islamic Identity in Western Europe (London: Grey Seal, 1995) 73–80;Google Scholar, Lucy Carroll, ‘Muslim Women and ‘Islamic Divorce’ in England’ (1997) 17(1) Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 97–115; Pearl and Menski, Muslim Family Law, 77–80, 393–8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarShah-Kazemi, Sonia Nûrîn, Untying the Knot. Muslim women, divorce and the Shariah (London: Nuffield Foundation, 2001).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Menski, , ‘Asian Laws in Britain and the Question of Adaptation to a New Legal Order: Asian Laws in Britain?’, Israel, Milton and Wagle, NK (eds), Ethnicity, Identity, Migration: the South Asian Context (Toronto: Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Toronto, 1993), 238–68, at 255.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Yilmaz, Dynamic Legal Pluralism, 167. Yilmaz, Ihsan, ‘The Challenge of Post-Modern Legality and Muslim Legal Pluralism in England’ (2002) 28(2) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 343–54, at 348–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁷ [1998] 1 FLR 375, [1998] 1 FCR 301, [1997] Fam Law 793. Other similar cases are R v Department of Health, ex parte Misra [1996] 1 FLR 128, QBD concerning entitlement to a pension scheme and widow's benefit where there were two Hindu widows, and Al Mansorri v Social Security Commissioners, 12 July 1995, CA (unreported), concerning widow's benefit where the second wife was also deceased.

¹⁰⁸ [2001] 2 FLR 6.

¹⁰⁹ Gandhi v Patel [2002] FLR 603 is a recent Hindu case where an inheritance dispute leads a widow to resort to court, for her only to discover that her polygamous Hindu marriage contracted in England was a ‘non-marriage’, as distinct from a ‘void’ marriage, thus altogether disentitling her from challenging the will of her deceased husband.

¹¹⁰ Foblets, ‘Conflicts of Law’; Ferrari, ‘Introduction’.

¹¹¹ Ibid.

¹¹² for suggestions centring on the need for state responsiveness to cultural pluralism, see Menski, ‘Asian Laws’ and , Ihsan Yilmaz, ‘Law as Chameleon: The Question of Incorporation of Muslim Personal Law into the English Law’ (2001) 21(2) Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar