( 89 )
Present: De Sampayo and Porter JJ.SIVACODUNTHU v. RASAMA.
C. Jaffna, 15,4.69.
Action for declaration of nullity of marriage—Wife pregnant at time' ofmarriage^—Fraudulent concealment of fad.
Where the fact of pregnancy of the wife at the time of hermarriage was concealed from the husband, who was therebyinduced to marry herr—
Held, that he was entitled to a declaration of nullity of marriage,fjl HP, facts appear from the judgment.
if. J. C. Pereira, K.C. (with him James Joseph), for plaintiff,petitioner.
July 12, 1922. De Sampayo J.—
The plaintiff was married to the defendant on November 8, 1920.He brought this action for a declaration of nullity of marriage on theground that at the time of the marriage the defendant was pregnant,and a child was born two days after the marriage, and that thedefendant fraudulently concealed the fact of the pregnancy, andthe plaintiff was thereby induced to marry the defendant.
The case was not contested, and the District Judge, on theevidence given on behalf of the plaintiff, found in favour of theplaintiff as regards the facts but thought that under the [Englishlaw the ground of fraudulent concealment was not sufficient reasonfor annulling the marriage. It is not necessary to ascertain whatthe English law is on the subject, as it is clear that it is the Roman-Dutch law that is applicable to the case, and under that law thecauses present here constitute a sufficient reason for declaringa nullity of marriage.
Acting in revision, we would set aside the judgment by which theDistrict Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s action, and order a decree ofnullity of marriage to be ^entered.
Poster J.—I agree.
SIVACOLUNTHU v. RASAMA