Mi Me vs Mi Shwe Ma

Macnaghten, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Upper Burma reversing a decree of the District Court of Magwe. 2. The question on which the Courts differed relates to the status of the plaintiff, Mi Shwe Ma. She claims to have been lawfully married to one Maung Aung Myat, deceased, and as his widow to be entitled to share equally in his estate with her elder sister Mi Me, who had been married to him for many years before his connection with the younger sister. 3. In Burma polygamy is undoubtedly lawful, and it is not unlawful to marry the sister of a living wife, though such a marriage is not considered quite respectable, while marriage with a deceased wife''s sister is looked upon as proper and even laudable. 4. The law relating to marriage in Burma is extremely lax. No ceremony of any kind is essential. Mutual consent is all that is required. In the absence of direct proof consent may be inferred from the conduct of the parties or established by reputation. But when proof of marriage depends wholly or mainly on reputation the circumstances of the case must be scrutinised with some caution, because the same word which is used to describe a woman lawfully married is applied by the Burmese to a woman living with a man on less honourable terms. The lax notions prevalent among the lower classes on the subject seem to be generally deplored and condemned by their betters, and it may be that the difference of opinion between the two Courts is due in some measure to the fact that the District Judge was a native gentleman, an educated Burman, who naturally regarded with little favour, if not with positive repugnance, practices tolerated by the law of his country, but not in accordance with the standard of a higher civilisation. On the other hand, the Judicial Commissioner was an Englishman of great experience, without any prejudice in favour of Western notions, whose only object seems to have been to administer the law truly

Page Tips missing page No. 504, 505. 7. On the whole their Lordships are of opinion that the appellants have not made out a sufficient case for disturbing the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, and their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.