140-NLR-NLR-V-61-S.-VELOO-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKISTANI-.pdf
574 SETNETAMBY, J.—Velao v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and
Pakistani Residents
1960
Present:Sinnetamby, J.
S. VELOO, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATIONOF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS, Respondent
3. C. 3 (Citizenship Gases)—V. 7102
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, Ho, 3 of 1949—Section 6 (j2) (i)—
** Assured income
In an application made by a person for the registration of himself and hiswife and children under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship)Act—
Reid, that, for the purpose of ascertaining whether an applicant is possessedof an assured income within the meaning of section 6 (2) (i) of the Act, one isentitled to aggregate not only his personal earnings hut also that of the membersof the family who live with him and are dependent on him : in’other words,the applicant is entitled to consider his own earnings with the earnings of thosewhose application for citizenship may tinder section 4 (2) be included in hisapplication, and who under the proviso to section 4(1} cannot, independentlyof him, apply for citizenship.
Ap:
Act.
PEAL under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship)
3. Mahendra, for the applicant-appellant.
Ian Wikramanayake, Crown Counsel, for the respondent. •
Cur. adv. wit.
April 1, 1960. SlHNETAMBY, J.
The applicant in this case had applied for registration of himself, hiswife and children under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship)Act. The only ground on which his application was refused was thatin the Depnty Commissioner’s view he was not possessed of an assuredincome. The evidence was to the effect that the applicant was inreceipt of a monthly income of about Rs. 50 from a new business whichhe had started with another partner and that his wife and one child namelya daughter earned between them about Rs. 100. The applicant’sevidence was that with his income of Rs. 50 he was unable to maintainthe entire family hut with the earnings of his wife and da’ighter he wasin a position to do so. The Deputy Commissioner accepted this evidence,but took the view that it was only the applicant’s Income that should
SrXNETA^MBY, J.—Veloo v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and575
Pakistani Residents
be taken into consideration in deciding the issue of whether the applicantwas possessed of an assured income. Against the refusal of the applica-tion this appeal has been preferred.
In order to decide the question that arises in this case J think it isnecessary to consider the scope of the legislation, in question and theobject which it was intended to achieve. Section 3 of the Act providedfor the acquisition of citizenship by Indian and Pakistani Residentswho were possessed of certain residential qualifications. Section 4provided that an applicant irrespective of sex or age was entitled toapply for registration; provided that a married woman, who was livingwith her husband and a minor who was dependent on his or her parent,was not entitled to make a separate application independently of thehusband or the father. It will thus be seen that where the head of thefamily applies for registration he must include in his applications hiswife who is living with him, and every minor child dependent on him.It is also clear from Section 4 that a minor who is not dependent on hisor her father, as the case may be, is entitled to make a separate applica-tion. The word “ dependant ” has not been defined in the Act butthe ordinary dictionary meaning is that a dependant is one who dependsfor support and maintenance on another. So far as the minor childSeethaiammah is concerned, one may assume that her earnings werenot as much as that of the mother. Although it is not known exactlyhow much of the “Rs. 100 was earned by the mother and how much by’ the daughter, I think it will be reasonable to assume from the fact thatshe was regarded as a dependant, that the daugther’s earnings were notsufficient to enable her to maintain herself.
The requirement in Section 6 is that in order to qualify for citizenshipthe applicant must be “ possessed of an assured income of a reasonableamount, or has some suitable business or employment or other meansof livelihood, to support the applicant and the applicant’s dependantsClearly the object of this requirement is to ensure that the applicantdoes not become a drag on the community or a burden on the state. Itwas obviously not considered desirable to grant citizenship rights tovagrants and people who could not maintain themselves. In, therefore,interpreting the words “ possessed of an assured income ” one must notlose sight of this fact. Section 6 (2) (i) states that an applicant must bepossessed of an assured income. It does not stipulate that he shouldhave the legal right to that income : in other words it is not necessarythat he should be the de jure possessor of that income. It is sufficientif he is in de facto possession of it. Where a husband, wife, and child,live together, one is entitled to assume that the husband and fatheris the head of the family and has control of the earnings of those who aredependent on him. Therefore, he though not in de jure possessionis certainly in de facto possession of the earnings of all the members ofthe family. The question of whether in this case the applicant is subjectto Hindu If w has not been considered, but, if he was, then clearly askarta he is e ititled to manage and be in possession of the family earnings,It seems to me, however, that for the purpose of ascertaining whether
576 SHTNETAMBY, J.—Veloo v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and
Pakistani Residents
an applicant is possessed of an assured income one is entitled to agreegate not only his personal earnings bnt also that of the members of thefamily who live with him and are dependent on him ; in other word^the applicant is entitled to consider his own earnings with the earning jgof those whose application for citizenship may under Section 4 (2) beincluded in his application, and who under the proviso to Section 4 (l1)cannot, independently of him, apply for citizenship. It certainly wasnot the objectof the Legislature to break up a family by granting citizen,ship rights to some and denying it to other members of the same family.
For the reasons I have given, the Deputy Commissioner was clearlywrong in his decision, which cannot be allowed to stand. Apart fromthat the possession of an assured income is not the only requirementcontemplated by Section 6 (2) (i) ; for if the applicant had “ otherlawful means of livelihood ” to support himself and his family, then toohe would, qualify. It cannot he said that the head of a family has noawful means of livelihood if the earnings of his wife and children areavailable to him and the aggregate amount is sufficient to maintain them.In the case of Ghandiram v. Commissioner1 H. N. G. Fernando, J., tooka similar view and held that an adult daughter, who was not in possessionof a separate income, had a lawful means of livelihood, where the meansof livelihood consisted entirely of the maintenance provided by herparents with whom she was living.
I would accordingly allow the appeal with costs fixed at Rs. 105. – TheCommissioner will take the neoessary steps on the basis that the applicanthas made out a prima facie case for the registration of himself, his wifeand his dependants.
Appeal allowed.
1 (1957) 59 N. L. R. 85,
Printed at ‘phtr Government Press, Revlon