HEARNE J .—Abdeen and Johara.
194%Present: Hearne J.ABDEEN, Appellant, and JOHAB.A, Despondent.
549—Kathi Court, Slave Island, No. 2,239.
Muslim divorce—Petition by wife for Fasah divorce—Admission by husband—No legal•proof required.
Where, on an application by a wife in the Kathi Court for a “ Fasah ”divorce the respondent admitted all the facts alleged by the wife, whichentitled her to a divorce,—
Held, that such admission may be regarded as a substitute for therequirement of legal proof by two witnesses.
HIS was an appeal from an order of the Kathi Court of Slave Island- taken with the leave of the Supreme Court.
S. A. Mariltar for appellant.
Seyed Ahamed for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
.July 17, 1944. Hearne J.—
The petitioner-respondent made an application for “ Easah ” divorcein the Kathi Court of Slave Island and the Kathi granted a divorce asprayed. The respondent-appellant appealed to the Board of Kathisand his appeal was rejected on a preliminary objection. Eeave to appealto this Court against the order of the Board was granted but it is nowconceded that the appeal is without merit. In these circumstances no
MOSELEY J.—Perera and Perera.
order can be made in respects of the appeal other than that it must standdismissed with costs. Counsel for the appellant has, however, arguedthat it is “ imperative (? incumbent) upon a Kathi under Rule 8, Part 1of the 3rd Schedule to the Ordinance to call at least 2 witnesses on behalfof a wife before ‘ Fasah ’ could be granted ” and that, as this was notdone, this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction will quashthe order made by the Kathi of Slave Island. Turning .to the record ofthe proceedings in the Kathi Court I note that the respondent-appellantwas present and made a full admission of all the facts alleged by his wifewhi^h entitled her to a divorce. It appears to me that, even wherethe law requires that legal proof should be by a (certain number of witnesses,an unequivocal admission may be regarded as a substitute for such proof.Whether this is so or not I am not disposed to interfere in revision ina matter in which the successful party was the wronged party, and theunsuccessful party was the one who admittedly perpetrated the wrong.Collusion is not alleged. I make no order in revision.
ABDEEN, Appellant, and JOHARA Respondent