WIJAYATILAKE, J.—AUie v. Nandawathie
1971Present: Wljayatilake, J.
M.G. ALLIS, Appellant, and A. D. NANDAWATHIE, Respondent8. C. 240/71—M. C. Matale, 32987
Maintenance—Illegitimate child — Proof of paternity—Relevancy of birth certificate—Evidence Ordinance, 8. 32 (5).
Where, in on application for maintenance of an illegitimate child whose birthhas been registered, the paternity of the child is disputed, the birth certificateof the child should be produced to assist Court in determining the question ofpaternity, although the entries in such certificate may not be conclusive.
Appeal from an order of the Magistrate’s Court, Matale.
8. C. Chandrahasan, for the respondent-appellant.
Applicant-respondent absent and unrepresented.
November 15, 1971. Wuayatilakb, J.—
Mr. Chandrahasan, counsel for the Appellant, has drawn my attentionto the fact that although the applicant in her application for maintenancehas stated that a child named Wickremasinghe was bom to her on 20.7.69by the appellant, the certificate of birth has not been produced, and thereis nothing to show whether in fact this birth was registered. In theciroumstances he submits, that it will be highly unsafe to make any orderin favour of the applicant. The principal question arises whether in factthe child in question was boro to this woman at all on this date. I aminclined to agree.
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Allis v. Nandawathie
Before an order is made in this case it would be satisfactory if thecertificate of birth of this child is produced if the birth has been registered.The entries in this certificate would be relevant. In my opinion, wherea birth has been registered the certificate of birth should be producedto assist Court in determining this question of paternity although theentries in such certificate may not be conclusive. The declaration ofparentage made by a parent has a genealogical value under Section 32 (5)of the Evidence Ordinance (see Silva v. Silva 43 N. L. R. 572 andS. C. 239/71 M. C. DambuUa 20925 of 15.11.71).
I would accordingly set asid? the order of the learned Magistrate andsend the case back for a fresh trial before another Magistrate. I makeno order as to costs.
Order set aside.
M .G. ALLIS, Appellant, and A. D. NANDAWATHIE, Respondent