Family lai'l - Uon-l>lohammedans - CO.(Lsortium - lfuether interference
.:.:!!.th.constitutes tortious act •.

Civil procedure- JurisdictiOn - Civil Courts -_ Non-Mohammedans
 Famibr relations - lfhether High Court has jurisdiction.

!2!:i - Consortium - Interference with right of consortium constitutes
tortUous act Injunction as remedy.

A non-elohammedan husband and reside.>J.t in the Sudan presented a
plaint in Hhich he asked for an order directing his "l-Jif'e's f'ather
to return his i"lif'e, alleging that the father refused to pern:it
the "I-:ife to return to the complain'ant~' The plaint was summarily
dismissed 011 the ground of lack of juri~diction.

(i) That the High couri has jurisdiction to entertain a claim
affecting family relations bet''leen non-Nohammedens ,

(ii) That a husband has a prima facie right to the society and
services of his ,'life, and a:ny person who , "l-lithout justification,
interferes vlith the right of consortium is liable to answer-

for his actions.

Revision:

A;J.ril.21.,:..,.~~,F'l!l!!.1!.i!lHtC'.'JPIo 'I'he "pplication before us relates to
a.n oriel' of His Honour Judge Sandes dismissing a petition originally
submitted by the plaintiff to the District Commissioner, Omdurman, in
i'lhich he asks for an order against his father-in-lai'l for the return of
his wife, whom he alleges the father-in-la"l is refusing to permit to
return to him. 'rhe learned judge has cxp essed doubts as to his
jurisdiction to entertain the claim and has rejected the plaint.

* Court: Flanna."l,. C.J~ and Platt, J.

The olaim is one affecting the fami1;r relations of non~ohammedan
residents of the Sudan, and there seems no suffioient reason to doubt
that the High Court of the Sudan has jurisdiction. If the plaintiff
shows a oause of action, his a~tion should be allowed. This court has,

of course, no 'knowledge of the merits or otherWise of the olaim, but a

husband has a prima faoie right to the society and servioes of his wife,
and any person who, t~ithout justification, interferes with the right of
oonsortium is liable to answer for his tortuous act. The plaintiff's
remedy would appear to lie in an injunotion. It mey be noted that,
oontrary to the statement appearing on the z-ecord , he denies t~t he

has any intention or deE!,ire to oompel his wife to live with hirri against her will.

Platt. J.: I ecnour-,

Application allOWed.