484
-
law of his domicile (1.e. Mohammedan law) he was capable of
marrying more than one wife. For some fifteen or more years
before his death he had been resident in England and engaged
as a teacher of Eastern languages. In 1905 in England he went through a ceremony of marriage according to Mohammedan
law with an English woman, described in the proceedings as
Later, Violet Annie Majid, and by her he had two children.
in 1920 (or alternatively in 1922) he went through a cere--
mony of marriage in England according to Mohammedan law with another English woman, described in the action as Kate
Elizabeth Belshah, by whom he had also two children. In 1923
he died intestate. Claims to his estate were made in the
Probate Division of the High Court by these two women and
their respective children, in which each of them denied the
right of the other to succeed to any of the estate. However,
during the hearing the two parties came to an agreement, and the proceedings were terminated on the terms of an agreed
settlement, which was made an Order of the Court. Under this
settlement both parties recognise the validity of both the marriages according to Mohammedan law and the legitimacy of
the/
the four children, and the solicitors to the two parties were
appointed administrators for the purpose of collecting the
estate and distributing it to these two women and their
respective children under the terms of the settlement.
This case is of great interest, because it appears to
show that an English Court recognises the polygamous unions
of a person, by the law of whose domicile such unions are
recognised as marriages, as being capable of supporting
rights of succession to property and of producing legitimate
children. The President, while apparently granting this
amount of recognition to these unions, was careful to make
it clear that neither of these women could claim grants of
administration of the estate as a wife, on the ground that
this would be contrary to English law, since the right to
claim administration as a wife could only be claimed by a
party to a union which was recognised as a marriage for all
purposes in English law. In other words, while recognising
these women's and their children's rights of succession to
the property under the law of the domicile, he did not
recognise/