Dutt v Kumari [1997] FJHC 13; Hba0003j.96s (23 January 1997)

Fiji Islands - Dutt v Kumari - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

(AT SUVA)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. HBA 003 OF 1996

BETWEEN:p class=MsoNormal align=center style="text-align: center; mer; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> RAVI DUTT
(f/n Deo Dutt)
Appellant

AND:

REENA KUMARI
(f/n Bissun Deo)
Respondent

E. Veretawatini for the Appellant
No appearance by the Respondent

JUDGMENT

On 7ember 1995 the Appellant was adjudged by the Nausori Magistrates Court (V. D. Nadakuitavukiavuki Esq.) to be the father of a child born to the Respondent on 28 January of the same year. He now appeals against that adjudication.

The Resident Magistrate's Judgmenthe issue of paternity was brief and may be set out in full:

"I am satisfied beyond doubt that the Defenis the putative father of t of the child namely Shenel Shivangni born to the complainant on the 28th day of January 1995. Months of pregnancy have been carefully calculated and found to be accurate. The Defendant was quite sketchy with his evidence that I do not wish to believe."

Under Section 18(2) of the Maintenance and Affiliation Act (Cap. 52) there is a statutory requirement that the evidence of a complainant in affiliation proceedings be corroborated "in some material particular by other evidence to the satisfaction of the Magistrate". No mention of this requirement for corroboration appears in the Judgment. The only testimony given on behalf of the complainant apart from her own was that of the complainant's father whose evidence only tenuously implicated the Appellant and was in any event hearsay and therefore inadmissible. The pregnancy calculations referred to by the Magistrate do not appear in the record of evidence before me but must have depended on the complainant's own evidence and were accordingly not independent and therefore not corroborative.

The standard of proof in all matrimonial proceedings is the balance of bilities but the degree of e of probability must be proportionate to and reflective of the seriousness of the subject matter (see Bater v Bater [1951] P.35). An adjudication of paternity is not to be arrived at lightly. The nature of the corroboration required has been examined by the Fiji Court of Appeal in Vinod Lal v Ambika Devi 20 FLR 70 and in Mahesh Chand v Savitri Devi FCA Reps 82/308.

I am satisfied that the statutory requirement for corroboration was not met. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.

M.D. Scott
Judge

23 January 1997.

capp003j.96s