022-NLR-NLR-V-12-JANE-HAMY-v.-DARLIS-ZOYSA.pdf
( 70 )
1909.
February 26,
Present: The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice.JANE HAMY v. DARLIS ZOYSA.
P. C., Balapitiya, 29,124.
Maintenance of illegitimate children—Compromise between father andmother—Power of Court—Ordinance No. 19 of 1889.
The provisions of Ordinance No. 19 of 1889 for the maintenanceof illegitimate children by their fathers may be enforced by theCourt, even if the mother takes no steps for that purpose or if sheis dead.
If an application for the maintenance of an illegitimate'child hasbeen made by the mother and has been compromised by an arrange-ment between herself and the father, the Court has still power toorder the father to make provision for the maintenance of the child.
A
PPEAL by the defendant from an order directing him to paya sum of money for the maintenance of his illegitimate
child. The facts and arguments sufficiently appear in the judgment.
L. R. Asserappa, for the defendant, appellant.
No appearance for the complainant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
February 26, 1909. Hutchinson, C.J.—
The provisions of the Ordinance No. 19 of 1889 for the maintenanceof illegitimate children by their fathers are obviously not intendedpurely for the benefit of the mother. They can be enforced by. theCourt, even if the mother takes no steps for that purpose or if sheis dead ; and if an application has been made for that purpose bythe mother and has been compromised by an arrangement betweenher and the father, that cannot deprive the Court of the power ofafterwards ordering the man to make provision for maintaining thechildren if he neglects to do so.
In the present case it seems from the Magistrate’s note that therehad been a previous application by the mother which had beenwithdrawn, on some terms which are not stated, but which I gatherfrom the woman’s evidence that she said the man had not compliedwith. That withdrawal cannot be any answer to the application,by whomsoever it is made, to compel the father to maintain thechild.
As to whether the man is proved to be the father of the child, 1must follow the ordinary rule where there is contradictory evidence,oath against oath, that the Appeal Court should accept the findingof the Magistrate unless it is clearly proved to be wrong.
The appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.