012-NLR-NLR-V-54-SOMASUNDERAM-Appellant-and-PERIYANAGAM-Respondent.pdf
Somasunderam v. Periyanagam43
1951Present:Nagalingam J.
SOMASUNDERAM, Appellant, and, PERIYANAGAM, RespondentS. C. 517—M.G. Nuwara Eliya, 6,414
maintenance—Illegitimate child—Applicant's evidence that defendant supportedchild within a year of its birth—Corroboration not necessary—maintenanceOrdinance (Cap. 76), s. 6.
In an application for the maintenance of an illegitimate child, no corroborationof the applicant’s evidence on the point as to whether the defendant hadmaintained the child within a year of its birth is required.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Nuwara Eliya.
■M. I. Mohamed, for the defendant appellant.
D. J. Thampu, for the applicant respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
44
NAGALUNGAM J.—Somasunderam v. Periyanagam
September 26, 1951/ Nagaungam J.—
The defendant appeals from an order of the learned Magistrate orderinghim to pay a sum of Rs. 10 per mensem by way of maintenance for the-illegitimate child of the applicant of which the applicant alleges thedefendant is the father.
There is ample evidence to sustain the finding of the learned Magistratethat the defendant is the father of the child. Apart from other evidencethere is the defendant’s own admission that he did have sexual relation-ship with the applicant. But, of course, he denied paternity on theground that at or about the date the child could have been conceivedand subsequent thereto he had nothing to do with the applicant butthat the latter was in the habit of receiving other men. The Magistratehas given very cogent reasons supported as they are by the evidence inthe case for his decision on the point, so much so that learned Counselfor the appellant felt that he could not properly canvass that finding.
Appellant’s counsel, however, attacked the judgment on the groundthat as the application for maintenance had been made after the lapseof twelve months from the birth of the child—in fact the applicationwas made about two and a half years after—the proof accepted by thelearned Magistrate that the defendant had maintained the child withintwelve months of its birth was based upon hearsay evidence and thatthe finding of the learned Magistrate upon this point could not be sustained.
The evidence complained of is that given by the Assistant Superinten-dent of the estate who stated that the defendant’s father had told himon several occasions that the defendant was giving money to the applicant.The learned Magistrate after examining all the evidence came to theconclusion that that statement alleged to have been made by the fatherhad also reference to a period subsequent to the birth of the child andtherefore was corroborative of the evidence given by the applicantherself that the defendant had maintained the child after its birth. Theapplicant also called the father of the defendant as her witness, but hedenied that he ever made such a statement as deposed to by the AssistantSuperintendent. It cannot be doubted but that on the denial of thedefendant’s father of his having made any such statement to the AssistantSuperintendent the latter’s evidence on the point became unacceptable.In fact there was nothing to indicate whether .the defendant’s father ofhis own knowledge or from information given by some other person didcome to the conclusion that his son was paying money to the applicant.But whatever view one may take of his statement, the Assistant Superin-tendent’s evidence on the point was inadmissible and could not be reliedupon. But I think the learned Magistrate quite correctly stated the lawwhen he said that no corroboration of the applicant’s evidence on thepoint as to whether the defendant had maintained the child within ayear of its birth is required. And as the learned Magistrate has acceptedthat evidence, there is sufficient evidence on record upon which the viewof the Magistrate can be supported.
I do not therefore think there is any occasion to interfere with the orderpassed by the Magistrate. I therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.