Mohitiappu Et Al. V. Kiribanda Et Al.,

Present : Garvin A.J. and Jayewardene A.J.

MOHITIAPPU et al. v. KIRIBANDA et al.      1923.


98-D. C. Kegalla, 6,197.

Refusal of a husband to consummate marriage-Action by wife for damages against husband and person instigating the husband to do so.

The refusal of a husband to consummate a marriage does, not amount to a tort giving rise to a claim for damages. Refusal to cohabit, that is, to consummate the marriage, amounts in law to desertion, and entitles the wife to obtain a dissolution of the marriage.

Both under the Roman-Dutch law and the English law husbands have been entitled to bring action for damages against persons, who maliciously or without just cause, have enticed away their wives and procured them or have induced them to absent themselves from their husbands. In the Roman-Dutch law no case can be found where a wife has been held entitled to bring a similar action when the husband is kept away from her--probably because she has no locus standi in judicio without her husband. A Kandyan wife is in the eye of the law a femme sole, and enjoys all the rights which a married woman in England has under the Marr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document