046-NLR-NLR-V-19-MEENADCHIPILLAI-v.-SANMUGAM.pdf
( 209 )
Present : Ennis J. and Schneider A. J.MEENADCHIPHiliAX v. SANMUGAM.
191—D. G. Jaffna, 10,240.
.Action for damages for seduction—Knowledge that seducer toas a marriedman.
A seduced girl who knew at the time that the seducer was .amarried man cannot maintain an action for damages for seduction.
I
K t.Viia action the plaintiff-respondent sued the defendant-appellant for the sum of Rs. 3,000, being damages consequent
■on an alleged seduction. The plaintiff admitted in her evidencethat at the date of the alleged seduction she was aware that thedefendant was a married man, and that he promised to make herhis wife. The District Judge entered judgment for plaintiff forRs. 1,000.
The defendant appealed.
Bawa, K. C. (with him Easaratnam), for defendant, appellant.—The Roman-Dutch authorities are clear that where a woman knowsthat- the seducer is a 'married man no action for seduction lies.See 4 Maas. 123; Voet, 48, 5, 4; Walter Pereira 722; Grotius 489.
A. St. V. Jayewardene (with him Balasingham), for plaintiff,respondent.—It was held in South Africa that the fact that thegirl knew that the seducer was a married man was a circumstancewhich might be pleaded in mitigation by the defendant. It is nota complete defence (3 Nathan 1679). See also ViUiers' De Injuria 56.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 23, 1916. Ennis J.—
This was an action for damages for seduction. The learnedJudge has found that the seduced girl knew at the time that theseducer was a married man. He stated that by the Roman-Dutchlaw the plaintiff could not maintain this action, but has held thatmatters are different to-day, and he has come to this conclusionapparently on the ground that to-day the seducer has not thealternative which used to be available to him either to marry thegirl or pay damages, and that the only remedy to-day left wouldbe a claim for damages.
On appeal some South African authorities were cited in supportof the reason given by the learned District Judge. A passage from3 Nathan 1679, which is based on the authority of two SouthAfrican cases, which were not before us, and a passage in DeVilh.'rs 56. The South African authorities are not binding on theseCourts, and it is not easy to follow the arguments on which their
191
1016.
Emns J.
Meenadchi-piUai v.Smtmugam
( 210 )
conclusion was arrived at. ^The Roman-Dutch law on the subjecthas been clearly cited in Mr. Walter Pereira's book—Laws ofCeylon 722—which cites a papsage from Van der Linden, whichis consistent with the passage in Voet, 48, S, 4, that no action wouldlie against a married man when the woman knew he was married.The Roman-Dutch action appears to have been based on a presumedpromise to marry. By the" law of Ceylon a promise to. marry mustbe in writing, and in any event a marriage cannot be enforced.The case of M. A. Sadiris Homy v. K. Suba Hamy1 shows that theRoman-Dutch action has not been entirely done away with by thesetwo facts, and that compensation may still be given in such anaction. It is, however, still based on the same reason, and, in myopinion, the Roman-Dutch law being clear must apply to-day inCeylon, and there seems to be no reason to adopt the extendedprinciple, which appears to be sometimes; at least, adopted in SouthAfrica.
I would allow the appeal, with costs.
Schneider A.J.—1 agree. .
Appeal allowed.