A Comparative Study of the Foundations and Rules of Family Law in Iran and England

Abstract

A comparative study of family law in Iran and England, particularly in analyzing the dialectical relationship between theoretical foundations and practical rules, holds a distinguished position in comparative legal studies. The significance of this subject lies not merely in the fundamental differences between the legal sources of the two countries, but also in its direct impact on the normative, social, cultural, and even economic structures of societies. The Iranian legal system, relying on Imami jurisprudence and Sharia principles, has consolidated family rules within the framework of the Civil Code, the Family Protection Law, and judicial practices. Within this framework, institutions such as marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance are directly influenced by Sharia texts and jurisprudential teachings, which has led to the formation of a relatively stable, tradition-oriented, and less flexible framework for regulating family relations. By contrast, family law in England is founded on the Common Law system and Acts of Parliament and, rather than being based on religious foundations, is grounded in customary and secular principles as well as modern social values such as gender equality, individual freedom, and the protection of children’s rights. Through judicial precedents and flexibility in the interpretation of legal rules, this system has been able to adapt itself to contemporary social and cultural developments. Thus, the rules concerning marriage, divorce, custody, and the division of property are less a reflection of fixed texts than a product of customary justice and the state’s protective policies. This study, using an analytical-critical and comparative approach, examines how theoretical foundations influence practical rules in the two legal systems and shows that although both systems share significant commonalities in protecting the institution of the family and safeguarding children’s rights, differences in legal foundations and sources have resulted in considerable divergences in methods of implementation and practical outcomes. The findings indicate that the Iranian legal system, due to its strong dependence on Sharia foundations, has less capacity for flexibility in response to social changes, whereas the English legal system, relying on custom and judicial precedents, has been able to respond to the changing needs of society. Finally, by offering proposals for reforming and improving family laws in Iran, this article emphasizes the necessity of adopting a comparative perspective in the development of family law. Such an approach can, while preserving cultural and religious values, provide the basis for enhancing social justice, increasing the efficiency of the legal system, and achieving greater alignment with international standards.