Pereira v; Halwalura
.[lx the Privy Council]
1957 Present :Lord Merriman, Lord Reid, Lord Somervell of Harrow*Lord Denning and Mr. L. M. D. de Silva '." ’ ’.C. PERERA, Appellant, and J. HALWATURA andanother, Respondents_ ' , '
Privy Council Apjjeal No. 11 of 1057■
'• S. C. 577—D. C. Kandy, 751V:
•*’ …J ; . f
Divorce—Adultery—Quantum of damages.‘-f
…. V.‘ j*. 4 ,V
,…* ~ t. .:». –
■ Where a husband sued his wifo for divorce on tho ground of her'adultery1,
adultery was clearly established, and tho co-respondent was ordered by thotrial Judge to pay a sum ofRs. 20,000 as damages. On tho question of damagostho trial Judg’o stated, and kept in view, the observations mado by the Privy!Council in Alles v. Alias 1 and repeated in Dean v. Anthonisz-*'. ',
Held, that thero was no reason for. reducing the amount of the damages- awarded.•- •-. r<. ’
1 (1950) 51 N. D. It. 41G.
5 (1953) 54 2f. D. It.. 538.
23-1SIR. L. M. D. DE SILVA—Pcrcra v. Halwalttra.
-^^-PPEAXi from a judgment of the Supremo Court.
M.P. Spencer, for the 2nd defendant appellant.
Sirhnevan Amerasinghe, with Vernon Di.ssanmjahe, for the plaintiffrespondent….
Cur. adv. vult.
October 9, 1957. [Delivered by Mrs. L. M. D. ue Sllva]—
In this action the 1st respondent sued his wife the 2nd respondent inthe District Court of Island}' for divorce on the ground of her adulterywith the appellant. He further claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000 as damagesfrom the appellant. He asked that the custody of the children ofthe marriage be given to him. In the answers filed by them the 2ndrespondent and tho appellant denied the adulter}'. The District Courtentered decree in the terms prayed for by t he 1st respondent and, on appeal,tho Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court. This isan appeal from tho decree- of the Supreme Court. The 2nd respondent,the wife, did not appear at the hearing of the appeal.
On tho material in tho record adultery was clearly established. Counselfor the appellant consequently did not find it possible to urge that thofinding of tho Courts below on the question of adultery should bedisturbed..
Ho argued howover that a plea of collusion between the 1st and 2ndrespondents, which the appellant had raised and had been rejected in theCourts below, should have been upheld. In support of this argumenthe pointed out that the 2nd respondent had filed answer denying adulterybut had given evidence admitting it. He also pointed out that certainletters written by the appellant to the 2nd respondent had been producedby the 1st respondent. Their Lordships have examine d the circumstancesin which these incidonts took place and, viewed in the light of thosecircumstances, these incidents afford no reason for finding that there wascollusion.
It was urged also that the damages were excessive. It was said thatthe learned trial Judge had regarded the 2nd respondent as having bcc-nof greater value to the 1st respondent than sho actually was or had been.Tho learned District Judge gave very full reasons for awarding theamount which he did and also pointed out that no mitigating circum-stances existed. Observations on tho question of damages weremade by tho Board in the case of Alles v. Alles L Theso wore repeatedby tho Board irDe-an v. Anthonie*2. The learned trial Judge stated, andkept.in view, those observations. Their Lordships can find no reasonfor altering tho amount of the damages awarded. They have humblyadvised Her Majesty that tho appeal be dismissed. The appellant willpay the 1st respondent the costs of this appeal.
E. C. PERERA, Appellant, and J. HALWATURA and another, Respondents
Pereira v; Halwalura