GEORGE HELAL, Applicant-Defendant v. GAMlLA HELAL, Respondent-Plaintiff
Family law-s-Maintainance-s-Duty to maintain mother-s-Burden of proving in-
sufficiency of means
Personal law-Greek Orthodox community-Maintenance of indigent mother
Where an indigent mother lives with and is maintained by one of her
two sons, and all the parties are member of the Syrian Branch of the
Greek Orthodox Church, their personal law imposes an obligation upon the '
second son, so far as his means permit, to contribute one half of the cost
of her maintenance, and the burden of proving that his means are insuffi-
cient rests upon the second son.
Revision
February 18, 1937. Bennett A.G.: This is an application for
revision of a judg ment of the High Court of Justice, Khartoum, in an
action in which the respondent claimed alimony from the applicant.
The applicant is the son of the respondent; the respondent has
one other son with whom she lives and who supplies all her wants.
In the court below the applicant admitted that, if he had the financial
means to share with his brother in supporting the respondent, he
would be under a legal obligation to do so. In this court he con-
tended that the enforcement of that obligation, in the circumstances
of this case, lay only at the suit of his brother.
The parties are members of the Syrian Branch of the Greek Or-
thodox Church, and they agree that the personal law as to alimony ap-
plicable to them as such members is identical with the Mohammedan
sharia law. This court adjourned the hearing of the case in order that
an authoritative statement of the shari a law governing the point raised
by the respondent might be ascertained. We have now had the ad-
vantage of an expression of opinion both from the Mufti of the Sudan
- Court: Bennett A.G., and Evans R.G.L.
and the Archimandrite in Khartoum of the Greek Orthodox Church.
Their views are identical. It is clear that, although the respondent is in
fact living with one son who supplies all her wants, yet, to the limit of
one-half of the sum necessary for her support and maintenance, and
to the extent that lier other son has means over and above what is
necessary for the support of himself and his family, she may bring an
action to recover alimony from him. The applicant therefore fails in
his first contention. .
The applicant further contended that there was no evidence of
means before the learned judge in the court below sufficient to sup-
port any award of alimony, and a fortiori the award actually made of
£E.3.500 m/ms per month from June 1936, the date of the com-
*mencement of the action. In my opinion, once it is established that
. under his personal law the applicant is bound to contribute to. the sup-
f port of his indigent mother provided that he has means over and above
those necessary for the support of himself and his wife, and it is being
admitted that his mother is in fact indigent, the onus of proof as to
means lies upon the applicant, and it is for him to satisfy the court
that he has not sufficient means. (His Honour then considered the
evidence of means, and concluded that the applicant had not estab-
lished that he was unable to pay maintenance. The alimony was then
set at £E.2.550.)
Evans R.G.L.: I concur.
J udg4ment modified in part