100-NLR-NLR-V-74-U.-INDRAWATHIE-KUMARIHAMY-Appellant-and-I.-W.-PURIJJALA-Respondent.pdf
430
Indrawaihie Kumarihamy v. Purijjala
Present :Samerawickrame, J.U.INDRAWATHIE IUBIARIHAMY, Appellant, andI. W. PURIJJALA, RespondentS. G. 1187/67—M. C. Malale, 25213
Maintenance—Illegitimate child—.4 false denial by the defendant—Whether it alwaysconstitutes corroborative evidence.
In nn Application for maintonanco of an illogitimato child, an untruo statomontby tho allogcd father in answor to a question put to him regarding his conductis not corroborativo of tho mother's ovidonco unloss it is capablo of loadingto nn inforonco that the defendant is tho father of tho child.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Matale.
Mrs. Manouri Mulleltuu-cgama, for the applicant-appellant.
11. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with Sv.pala Munasinghe and BenEliyalamby, for the defendant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
SAMERAWICKRAME J.—Indrawalhie Kumarihamy v. Purijjala
431
December 21, 1970. S-AMERAWicRBAirE, J.—
The application of tho applicant-appellant for maintenance wasdismissed on tho ground that there was no corroboration. Learnedcounsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that a false denial mayamount to corroboration and referred to tho fact that the defendant-respondent had falsely denied that he sent a Vesak card to the applicantat or about the relevant time. The respondent did not in fact totallydony sending the Vesak card but was ovasivo about it and tried to makoout that it was sent in the year 1963 and not in 1966. It would appearfrom the post-mark on tho envelope which has been produced by theapplicant-appellant that tho card was sent in tho year 1966. Evenassuming that there has been a false denial by the defendant-respondenton this point, the effect of it has to be considered. It is not every untruestatement by an alleged father that is corroboration of tho mother’sevidence—vide Somasena v. Kusumawalhiel. The false denial ontho part of the defendant must be oapablo of leading to aninference in support of tho applicant’s evidence that tho defendant istho father of the child—vide Dharmcidasa v. Gunawathy 2. Tholearned Magistrate states that the Vesak card in itself is quiteinnocuous. I am therefore unable to hold that the false denial in respectof tho Vesak card affords corroboration. Tho applicant-appellant’sappeal accordingly fails and I dismiss it but I do so with regret.
There will be no order for costs.
Appeal dismissed.