( 317 )
damages in respect of the injury thereby inflicted on him. TheDistrict Judge has held that he was entitled to maintain an actionin respect of this injury, although it was strenuously contendedthat, as between Mohammedans, no such action lay. The defend-ant has appealed. Mr. Bawa, who appeared for him, arguedbefore us that, inasmuch as the Mohammedan Code of 1806,which governs the relations between Mohammedan husbands andwives, was silent as to this question, it was not competent to theCourt to apply the rules of the Common Law to this case. Heargued that the relationship between a Mohammedan and hiswife was not a marriage, and that, therefore, no actionable damageresulted to the Mohammedan husband in case of adultry. Herelied upon a decision of this Court in which I took part—Tillekaratne v. Samsadeen (4 N. L. R. 65),—where this courtheld that we ought not to impose on a Mohammedan marriedwoman the disability to deal with her own property which theBoman-Dutch Law imposed on a Christian wife.
It does not seem to me that the present case is at all analogousto that case. The ground of the action in the present case is theinjury inflicted on the husband’s reputation by the conduct of theadulterer, the disgrace and shame to which he is put in the eyesof his neighbours, relations and friends. So far as I can judge ofthe views and feelings of Mohammedans in this matter, a Moham-medan husband resents quite as much as a Christian husbandan insult of this kind. In fact, I imagine that the disgrace wouldbe likely to be felt more acutely by a Mohammedan husband,and I am, therefore, unable to see on what principle the Courtshould deny a man insulted in this way the ordinary right torecover damages for that insult.
But another objection was raised by counsel, which was arguedin the Court below, in which I think there is more substancethan the one to which I have just referred, and that is this:it appears that adulterous relations have been going on since1897. This action was instituted in April, 1900. Some time inAugust, 1897, the plaintiff commenced an action against thedefendant, alleging that in July, 1896, adultery had been com-mitted and claiming damages. In December of that year heapplied to have the case struck off the roll, as he had no funds tocarry it on. In September, 1899, he applied to have the case puton the roll again, and a few days afterwards moved the Court tohave the case dismissed, on the ground that he had settled matterswith the defendant. The case was accordingly dismissed on the13th September, 1899. On the 24th April, 1900, he instituted thepresent action, alleging that, after the dismissal of the action,
October 19.Bonssb, C.J.
( 318 )
October 19. adultery had still continued. It seems to me that the dismissalof the former action is a bar to the present action; that, by the
Bodsbb, C.J. continuance of adulterous intercourse, no fresh action accrued tothe plaintiff: the insult was completed; and I think the DistrictJudge ought not to have allowed the plaintiff to re-institute hisaction.