JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3 of 1933, the First Additional Magistrate of Thazi passed an order directing M.S. Singleys to pay to Ma To the sum of Rs. 25 a month maintenance, she being his wife. Against this order M.S. Singleys applied to the Sessions Court of Meiktila in revision,, and the learned Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings to this Court with the recommendation that the order of the lower Court should be set aside on the ground that at the time of the marriage M.S. Singleys was not a Buddhist and unless the marriage was performed under the Special Marriage Act there could be no legal marriage between, them. There was no doubt that M.S. Singleys and Ma To have lived together for 13 years as man and wife and with the repute of being such. In fact, so accustomed has M.S. Singleys become to regarding Ma To as his wife that even in his evidence he was unable to avoid expressions he could only use rightly of a legal wife. He uses the expression "since the time I got married with the applicant." He speaks of her living in adultery with some person. It is proved that he followed Buddhist customs; such as vesetcha on a ceremonial occasion, and it is clear that to a certain extent he does conform to Ma To's religion. But it must be admitted that there is no proof that he really professes Buddhism. On the other hand there is no proof that he professes any religion. He maintains that he is an Anglo-Indian and a Christian, but he brought no evidence whatsoever to prove that he was a Christian. His service-book, which was produced in Court, contains an entry that he is an Indian Christian, but on examination it was found that this was a correction of the original entry "Indian Hindu," and the correction has not been initialled. It would appear that M.S. Singleys is a man of no professed religion at all. The question arises whether in the circumstances of the present ease it should not be held that he and Ma To were married.

2. Ma To's claim is that they were married according to Burmese-Buddhist rites, but no evidence was given as to what these rites were. It is alleged that M.S. Singleys's aunt was buried according to Buddhist custom, and this allegation was not rebutted. Ma To states that she began to live with the applicant as his lover, so that it would appear that she also claims that the presumption of marriage arises from the fact of cohabitation with habit and repute for a number of years. I have been referred to a decision of a Bench of this Court in S. Anamalay Pillai v. Po Lon (1905) 3 L.B.R. 228. It was there held that a Hindu outside the recognized costs of the Hindu faith can marry a Burman Buddhist, and that the ordinary presumption of marriage should be applied in a case where such a pariah and a Burmese woman have lived together as husband and wife for many years. In that case it was the Hindu himself who was claiming to be the husband of the Burmese woman. I hesitate to apply tins decision to the circumstances of the present case, where the so. called Hindu--if he is a Hindu--denies that he ever married Ma To. It is not unusual in this country to find unions of this kind, which are not sanctioned by any religious or civil law, and no doubt hardship is often caused to the weaker parties, nevertheless they must take the consequences of their conduct.

3. It appears to me that it has not been proved that M.S. Singleys was a Buddhist, and although it is uncertain of what religion he is, it is I think clear that there is no law under which it could be held that his cohabitation with Ma To had become in effect a legal marriage. They came together without any recognized ceremony, and it cannot now be assumed that there was any tie which binds them. For these reasons I set aside the order passed by the First Additional Magistrate of Thazi. Ma To's application is dismissed.