COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Annunziata and Agee 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

RAZIEH SHOUSTARI 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0399-02-4 JUDGE G. STEVEN AGEE 

 DECEMBER 31, 2002 

ALI A. ZAMANI 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Gaylord L. Finch, Jr., Judge 

 Patrick G. Merkle for appellant. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Razieh Shoustari ("Shoustari") appeals a decision of the 

Fairfax County Circuit Court denying her an award of spousal 

support. We find no error in the decision of the trial court and, 

therefore, affirm its decree for the reasons stated below. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Shoustari and Ali A. Zamani ("Zamani") participated in a 

marriage ceremony in Tehran, Iran on May 18, 1996. At the time of 

the ceremony Zamani was married to another woman. 

 When Shoustari discovered Zamani's other marriage, she 

requested the Fairfax County Circuit Court in her bill of 

complaint to enter a decree of annulment based "on grounds of void 

marriage." Zamani admitted in his answer that he was married to 

another woman and that his marriage to Shoustari was void. 
 Pursuant to Code § 20-89.1, the trial court entered the 

requested decree providing the marriage entered into by the 

parties "is hereby declared a nullity and is determined to be void 

ab initio." The trial court also denied Shoustari's request for 

spousal support on the ground that spousal support may not be 

awarded in the case of a void marriage. Shoustari appeals the 

decision as to the denial of spousal support. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Zamani was married to another woman at the time he married 

Shoustari. The parties agreed with the court's decree that the 

Zamani/Shoustari marriage was a bigamous marriage and therefore 

void under the plain language of Code § 20-43. "All marriages 

which are prohibited by law on account of either of the parties 

having a former wife or husband then living shall be absolutely 

void, without any decree of divorce, or other legal process." 

Code § 20-43. 

 As no marriage existed between the parties, Shoustari 

acquired no legal rights thereby. As we plainly held in 

Kleinfield v. Veruki, 7 Va. App. 183, 372 S.E.2d 407 (1988), this 

means there is no right to a spousal support award. 

[A] bigamous marriage is void and it confers 

no legal rights to the parties. It is 

"contrary to the laws of Virginia and public 

policy." Only "upon decreeing the 

dissolution of a marriage" do the courts of 

Virginia have jurisdiction to award spousal 

support or equitable distribution. Code 

- 2 -
§§ 20-107.1 and 20-107.3. Since the 

marriage . . . was void and, thus, there was 

no marriage, the trial court had no 

authority to award spousal support or make 

an equitable distribution award. There is 

no authority for the parties by their 

actions outside of the law to invest the 

courts with power to treat a relationship as 

a lawful marriage. 

Kleinfield, 7 Va. App. at 190, 372 S.E.2d at 411 (citations 

omitted) (emphasis added). 

 Shoustari argues that the Supreme Court of Virginia's 

decision in Henderson v. Henderson, 187 Va. 121, 46 S.E.2d 10 

(1948), should lead to a different result. We disagree. 

Henderson addressed only child support in the context of 

children of a void marriage and did not consider spousal support 

in any manner. 

 She also argues that the doctrine of equitable estoppel 

creates an independent right of spousal support. Shoustari did 

not plead equitable estoppel as a ground for the award of 

spousal support in the trial court. The record contains no 

reference to any argument related to equitable estoppel being 

made to the trial court. We are therefore barred from 

considering such an argument for the first time on appeal by 

Rule 5A:18. See Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 

494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998) ("The Court of Appeals will not 

- 3 -
consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the 

trial court.").1

 Finally, Shoustari contends that the authority of the trial 

court to act under Code §§ 20-107.1, 20-107.2 and 20-107.3 upon 

the "dissolution of a marriage" implies a right of spousal 

support in this case. Again, we disagree. As Kleinfield

clearly provides, there was never a marriage at law between the 

parties. 7 Va. App. at 190, 372 S.E.2d at 411. Accordingly, 

there is no "marriage" for the court to dissolve under any of 

the foregoing statutes. Further, Code § 20-43 unequivocally 

provides that a bigamous marriage, as in the case at bar, "shall 

be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal 

process." 

 As Shoustari has no basis at law to claim spousal support 

from Zamani, the decision of the trial court denying a spousal 

support award is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

 1

 Shoustari's equitable estoppel argument is without basis 

in the statute or case law. The creation of such an independent 

ground for award of spousal support is a matter of policy which 

is the prerogative of the legislative branch of government. The 

General Assembly has made no such provision. See Wood v. Bd. of 

Supervisors of Halifax Cty., 236 Va. 104, 115, 372 S.E.2d 611, 

618 (1988) ("[I]t is the responsibility of the legislature, not 

the judiciary, to formulate public policy, to strike the 

appropriate balance between competing interests, and to devise 

standards for implementation."). 

- 4 -