Soga v Apykas [2006] PGDC 12; DC543 (30 June 2006)

DC543

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

DCCi 415 of 2005

BETWEEN

JENNY SOGA
Plaintiff

AND

SEVEN APYKAS
Respondent

Goroka: G Vetunawa
2005: November 17
2006: March 24, 18, April 26, May 04, June 30

Cases Cited
Nil

References
1. Section 5.5 Child Welfare Act

Counsel
Name of Lawyer, For The First Complainant
Name of Lawyer, For The Respondents

2005

JUDGEMENT

G Vetunawa: This is a maintenance claim instituted under Section 5.5 Child Welfare Act. The respondent denied paternity of the female child namely Sonome Seven born on 06th December 2002.

2. The parties were not married to each other. The plaintiff claimed they had sex on the 14, 15, and 16 April 2002 at Nupuru Health Centre. The respondent admitted having sex with the plaintiff but insisted he used condom. The plaintiff disputed the usage of condom.

3. This is the only issue which is disputed. I have to make a conclusion. It’s a matter of credibility of the parties. I conclude that the defendant is telling lies to the Court that he used condom.

4. I find that the parties had sex on the 14, 15 and 16 April 2002 without using condom and as a result the said child was conceived and born on 6 December 2002.

5. Now I will go on to the issue of maintenance of the said child. Parental obligation to maintain their children is a natural responsibility which is enforced only by the law of the State. The State can only come in to force those parents who fail to fulfil that natural responsibility to maintain their children. Regardless of what walk of life a parent has he or she must maintain his or her children.

6. In this case the defendant has that natural obligation to maintain his child who he willingly produced by having sex with the mother. He can not just have sex for the pleasure only without being answerable to the consequences of having sex.

7. Producing a child is an important act of creation whereby parents become co-creators of the creator. There should not be any argument against the responsibility to maintain his child whether the defendant likes it or not he has bound himself to maintain his child. The defendant has miserably failed to maintain his child since the child was born and therefore he should be sorted by the law by way of this Court Order to fulfil this natural and legal obligation to maintain the child. Therefore judgement is entered against the defendant to pay maintenance for the child Sonome Seven (F DOB 06/12/02) in the sum of K60.00 every fortnight until the child turns eighteen (18) years or dies before turning 18 years or until this order is discharged by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction whichever first occurs. Payment to commence on 7 July 2006 and shall be paid through the Clerk of Court and BMS Goroka.

Plaintiff: In person
Respondent: In person