Maintenance—Child maintained by sustenance afforded by the mother—
Liability of the father.
Where a child needs no maintenance other than the sustenanceafforded by the mother, no order should be made against the fatherunder section 3 of “The Maintenance Ordinance, 18E9.”
N this case an application was made by the mother of anillegitimate child for an order on its putative father under
section 3 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1889. The accused denied thathe was the father of the child, and his liability to maintain it.
The Police Magistrate held against him on the question ofpaternity, and made order as prayed for.
In appeal Bawa for accused, appellant.
Jayawardena, for respondent.
SETHU v. JANIS.P. C., Galle, 19,527.
Bonser, C. J.—
In this case I do not feel inclined to disturb the finding of thePolice Magistrate as to the paternity. Mr. Bawa has, however,objected that there is no evidence that the defendant neglectedor refused to maintain his child; that it does not requiremaintenance, for being of tender years it should derive itssustenance from the mother. The case should go back to theMagistrate to ascertain these facts :—
Whether the child needs any maintenance other than thesustenance afforded by the mother.
Whether the defendant has neglected or refused to supplysuch maintenance.
If either question is answered in the negative, then the appealwill be allowed, and that without prejudice to any subsequentapplication for maintenance for the child when it attains an ageat which it will require maintenance.
SETHU v. JANIS