( 319 )
Present : Schneider J. and Jayewardene A.J.
EOSAHAMY t>. CAROLISHAMY.494—X). 0. Galle, 20,536.
Seduction-—Consent of the woman seduced—Action for damages.
An action for damages for seduction lies even where the womanwas a consenting party to the seduction.
H. V. Per era (with him Rajakariar), for plaintiff, appellant.
Soertsz, for defendant, respondent.
July 25, 1924. Schneider J.—
This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages onthe ground that she had been deflowered by the defendant underpromise of marriage. She claimed a sum of Rs. 1,000. Thedefendant denied that he had seduced the plaintiff. The learnedDistrict Judge appears to have regarded her action as one fordamages for breach of promise of marriage, and has dismissedher action as he is very doubtful whether any promise of marriagewas made. Upon the evidence, he took the view that the plaintiffwent to the defendant to live as his mistress. 1 think there issufficient in the evidence, especially in view of the denial of thedefendant that he had anything to do with the plaintiff, that theplaintiff had been induced by, the defendant to go away with himand live as his mistress upon a promise that he would marry her.I see no reason for rejecting her evidence that the defendant onJanuary 26 promised to marry her and obtained her me' ler’spermission to take her away, that she refused at first, but waspersuaded to go with the defendant by his assurance that he wouldmarry her within three months. Now, it seems to me that theplaintiff has been seduced by the defendant, and the learned DistrictJudge has held upon the evidence that she was a virgo intacta.She is, therefore, entitled to damages. There is little evidenceto prove what damages should be awarded to her. The DistrictJudge in his judgment states that the plaintiff and her motherare poor. In the circumstances I think Rs. 100 as damages andcosts in both Courts will meet the justice of the case.
( 820 )
I agree. The learned District Judge appears to have beenunder the impression that where a woman is a consenting partyto her seduction, she is not entitled to claim damages. This viewis clearly erroneous* This action lies* says Van Zyl in bis JudicialPractice of South Africa, though the seduction may have beenwith the consent of the woman. In fact all the cases in our reportsshow that the seduction has been with the consent of the woman.
ROSAHAMY v. CAROLISHAMY