067-NLR-NLR-V-53-TURIN-Appellant-and-LIYANORA-Respondent.pdf
310
BASNAYAKE J—Turin. v. Liyanora
1951Present : Basnayake J.TUBIN, Appellant, and LIYANORA, Respondent8. C. 520—M. C. Oalle, 19,036
Maintenance Ordinance—Illegitimate child—Corroboration of mother's evidence—Section 6.
Where, in an application lor maintenance of an illegimate child, the evidenceof the mother is unreliable the question of corroboration does not arise, and theapplicant cannot in such a case succeed.
AlPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Galle.
E. Chitty, with G. L. L. de Silva, for the defendant appellant.
No appearance for the applicant respondent.
October 1, 1951. Basnayake J.—
This is an application for maintenance in respect of a two-year oldchild called Amaradasa. The applicant is the child’s mother. Thelearned Magistrate finds that her evidence is unreliable. He says:." The applicant in cross-examination made many a statement and thenin the next breath contradicted herself. She showed that she was notsure of dates. Further she said .that Sampson before notice of marriagedid not visit her but she was forced to admit that he did visit her. ” Healso observes: ‘ ‘ The applicant did not cut a good figure in the witness-box. ” Despite the unsatisfactory nature of the applicant’s evidencehe has given her judgment on the ground that her evidence is corroboratedby that of her witness, an ex-Village Headman. The ex-headman isnot a person of unblemished character. He has admitted that he had beenfined Rs. 25 in a case of assault and that he had been sentenced to twoyears’ rigorous imprisonment for causing grievous hurt.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that where the evidence ofthe witness who needs corroboration is unreliable the question of corrobo-ration does not arise and the applicant cannot in such a case succeed.Learned counsel’s submission in my view is entitled to succeed.
The rule requiring corroboration of the mother’s evidence in proceedingsfor maintenance, is thus stated in section 6 of the Maintenance Ordinance:
“ No order shall be made on any such application as aforesaid onthe evidence of the mother of such child uni ess corroborated in somematerial particular by other evidence to the satisfaction of theMagistrate. ”
What the statute provides is that no order for maintenance of anillegitimate child should be made unless a mother who has givenconvincing evidence is corroborated in some material particular. If themother’s evidence does not convince the judge the question of corrobora-tion does not arise. It appears from the case of Le Roux v. Neelhling 1
. 1 Juia c1891-1892), p. e47.
SWAN J.—Zaekariya c. Benedict
811
that ihe rule under the Roman-Dutch Daw was that the- applicant whoseeks to fix the paternity of an illegitimate child on a man must dearlyprove it and must be corroborated in some material particular. In oaseof doubt judgment must be given in favour of the defendant. TheMaintenance Ordinance has not altered that aspect of the Common Law.
For the above reasons the finding of the trial judge is set aside and theappeal is allowed.
Appeal aUweed.