Saleha talked sensibly, and told me she had been married three times. Her first husband, the girl's father, was dead. The second divorced her, and now the third had turned her out. Marriage she considered a failure. I sent for the husband, and, after seeing the pair together, realised it was a hopeless case. The man had conformed to Mahomedan law, since he had thrust his wife from his house, by sending her six annas daily, as musroof or maintenance. He did not want to take her back. She did not want to go; but they both professed otherwise. There was a reason. Under Mahomedan law a woman, becoming openly disobedient, and forcing her husband to divorce her, may forfeit all right to her mehr or dowry. Therefore, in the court, and particularly in the Kathi's court where all matrimonial cases are sent, she must be careful what she says, and how she acts. Also, outside the courts she must walk circumspectly. Foolish conduct may be misunderstood, or seized upon as a pretext to deny her her rights. If a man is tired of a woman he may, in sundry ways, lead her a dog's life, keeping well within the sharia[7] himself. When she is tired of it all, and asks for a divorce, he can keep her dangling on until at last the woman, in desperation, will offer to give up her mehr for her liberty. That is, very often, the man's price; he will then divorce her three times before witnesses. In such a case, if she can prove his little game, she has still a remedy in the courts. This is the weakest point in the Mahomedan marriage laws, for the man may marry four wives, and, whilst the poor woman is kept hanging on as a grass widow, he may enjoy all the comforts of married life. She may not marry again until he has agreed to divorce her, or she has proved such outrageous conduct on his part that the Kathi will take the matter into his own hands. What is called "outrageous treatment" of a woman under European law is not always so defined under Mahomedan jurisdiction. [7] Mahomedan law. When I sent Saleha and her husband to the Kathi the man proved his wife was disobedient. Had she not left her house to go visiting without his permission? Did she not now refuse to return to him, prepared as he was to forgive her? The woman said she was willing to go back on the condition that he first returned her property. The man swore on the Koran she possessed nothing of that which she claimed, excepting the rope, the box, the nose ring and her clothes. That settled it. She got these articles, but firmly refused to return to him until all were forthcoming. They were both playing a game. We are now awaiting the return, from Perim, of her brother with whose wife she lives, in the hope that he will be able to patch up the trouble. Such is the history of this year's biggest divorce case in the high society in Zeila.