Reuben v Misko [2008] PGDC 96; DC754 (17 April 2008)

DC754

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS FAMILY JURISDICTION]

FC 05 of 2008

BETWEEN

BRIGETTE REUBEN
Complainant

AND

KORONA MISKO
Defendant

Buka: B Tasikul, SM

2008: April 17

CIVIL - Affiliation proceeding - Statutory requirement for corroboration in some material particulars.

Case Cited

Nil

Reference

Child Welfare Act

Counsel

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendant - In Person

17 April 2008

REASON FOR DECISION

B Tasikul, SM : The defendant denies paternity of the child born to the complainant on 7 July 1998. The fact of the matter is that, the defendant was married to the complainant’s sister in whom they have two (2) children namely Veronica Masina and Marutei Buhin. They were living in Tinputz at their mother’s village in which the defendant’s wife got sick and died at Buka General Hospital.

2. During their stay at Tinputz, the defendant was also having a secret relationship with the complainant. The defendant’s wife upon finding it out, resulted in the complainant coming back to their village at Hanahan, Buka where she gave birth to the child now the issue of this proceeding.

3. The complainant testified that while they were at Tinputz, they did on many occasions have sexual intercourse. It was admitted by the defendant. This was also confirmed by the father who later knew about that relationship.

4. The complainant’s sister died because of this relationship between the complainant and the defendant which contributed to her illness.

5. There is also evidence that the defendant on several occasions had been giving her money when the defendant was working at Kokopau.

6. The defendant denies being the father of the child basically because the complainant came and gave birth at Hanahan - Buka, while they were at Tinputz. There was no evidence if the complainant was also having an affair with someone else. The only evidence is from Robert Semoso who confirms that on several occasions the complainant would come and ask for money from the defendant and he would assist in loaning him money.

7. Section 55 (3) of Child Welfare Act stipulates that:

"A court shall not make an order under subsection (1):

(a) on the evidence of the matter, unless her evidence is corroborated in some material particular; or

(b) if the court is satisfied that at the time when the child was conceived the mother was a common prostitute; or

(c) if the evidence adduced indicated that it is impossible or unlikely that the defendant is the father of the child."

8. Corroboration is essential in an affiliation proceeding as stipulated in the Child Welfare Act. The defendant denies being the father on the basis that the complainant while in Hanahan in Buka was having an affair with another man that is why she returned to Buka and gave birth. This I would say is an outrageous excuse. He failed to provide evidence to support his claim.

9. Generally speaking, there is evidence that there was an intimate relationship between the complainant and himself while they were at Tinputz. The defendant’s wife knew about the relationship that is why she was worried and this might have been one of the contributing factors to her death.

10. The complainant’s father knew about the relationship which he confirmed when his first daughter died, he came back and lived with them at Tinputz. During his stay the defendant continued to engage with the complainant in that sexual relationship. The whole community in Tinputz knew about that relationship.

11. How can the defendant deny being the father when the immediate family members knew actually what was going on in the house? You don’t expect the father to see you physically sleeping with his daughter.

12. I am therefore satisfied that there is evidence before me that the defendant is the father of the child namely Odilia Sarenga, born to the complainant on 7 July 1998 at Hanahan Health Centre.

13. The defendant stated that he has been supporting the complainant and the child on several occasions by giving her money. The Child Welfare Act dearly express that where the defendant has left the child without any means of support must pay some allowance. There is evidence that the defendant now remarried and is living with another woman. The complainant is living on her own with her child and supported by her father. By giving money and living in a different roof can not be seen as a lawful means of support. The child also needs the moral support that is love and affection of a father. It is not enough to only support the child financially. To me it is not a lawful means.

14. I am therefore satisfied that the defendant has left the child without lawful means of support.

15. I therefore order that the defendant pay child maintenance to the complainant.

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendant - In Person