Conflict of ~w8-1urisdiction-Action for maintenance of wlfe~PtJf'lia non-

                M ohainmedof18          

Maintenance-Refusal of wife to live With husband on ground. of cruslItr-
Maintenance allowed-Temporary ordeY

The 8I!pellant resisted the claim on the ground that the respOndeat W8I
not willing to live with him, Peacock J. in the court or first instance gave

                -judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal                                    

Held: (i) The respondent is not deprived of he,r right to alfm<my,
because she refuses ,to live with the appellant in view of his cruelty.

( ii) The civil Courts of the Sudan have jurisdiction to j hear suibl for
alimony where the, parties are not Moslems and are resident in the Sudaa. '

( iii) The COuncil of, the Protostant Community in Egypt might be a
competent tribunal to deal with this case, but this does not aHect the
jurisdiction of the High Court. of the Sudan to entertain this suit, aod
grant relief.

Courts Ordinance 1915, ~. 36.

Appeal

February 24, 1920. Wasey Sterry L.S.: In my opinion the
appellant has shown no sufficient reason for reversing the judgement.
of the court below.

·Court: Wase.y Sterry LoS., Dun 9·J·, Fleming J.The judgement of the learned judge is an order for the appellant
to pay the respondent during 1919 tE.6 a month for her support.

It is admitted that it, is a husband's duty to support his wife,
but the husband says that he 'is relieved from this duty in this case
because the wife refuses to live with him. The wife rejoins that
his conduct in the past is such that she is not bound to return to him.
The learned judge has found that he has been guilty .of cruelty of
insult and of stinginess and in short that his house has been intolerable,
and, therefore, that- the respondent was entitled at that moment to
obtain an order for her maintenance, which was limited to the. period
of one year in the hope that the parties might come together again.

I see no reason to differ from the, conclusions at which the

. learned judge has arrived: more especially after the terms in which
the appellant has thought fit to allude to his wife and her family in
his application for appeal and the statement he has read to us this
morning.

I am therefore of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed

         with costs.                                                                   

Dun, C.J.: I agree that this appeal should be dismissed: upon
reading the evidence recorded by the learned judge and the corres-
pondence, I think there was ample reason for holding that ~e
respondent in the circumstances of this case was justified in refusing
to live with the appellant and had not forfeited her right to be
supported by him by living apart froni him.

  I wish to add one word as to the jurisdiction of the High Court

to entertain this suit. Section 36 of the Courts Ordinance 1915
provides that the courts established by the Ordinance shall not have
jurisdiction to hear certain classes of suits (which would include, this
suit) when the parties thereto are Mohammedans, the natural inference
is that when the parties are not Mohammedans the courts may enter-
tain such suits and indeed there are no other courts in the Sudan
which can.

It is argued that the Council of the Protestant Community in
Egypt is the only competentzribunal to deal with this case, but I think
it would be nothing shot"' ~f a scandal if the parties were compelled
to go to Egypt in a case of this kind in order to get a decision.

I do not say )6aC the Council is not competent to deal with
such disputes, no{ that the decisions of the Council would not be
enforced in th~Sudan: when, some one questions the validity of ad~sion of the' Councilor the' right to enforce it in the Sudan, it will
he time enough to consider these points: but that the High Court of
Justice has jurisdiction to entertain this suit and to give the judgement
it has given is to my mind entirely free from eve't'/ possible shadow