Ponnammah V. Rajakulasingham

1948     Present: Basnayake J.

PONNAMMAH, Appellant, and RAJAKULASINGHAM, Respondent

S. C. 488-M. C. Batticaloa, 4,731

 

Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance-Certificate signed by Additional Assistant -Provincial Registrar-Not prima facie evidence-Section 42 Customary marriage among Hindus-Tying of thali not always essential. A certificate of death under the hand of a person who describes himself as an Additional Assistant Provincial Registrar is not prima facie evidence under section 42 of the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance because it is not certified by a prescribed officer. A person who alleges that the thali ceremony is essential to a valid marriage in the community to which the parties belong should prove it as a question of fact. Ratnamma v. Rasiah (1947) 48 N. L. R. 475, doubted. .

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Batticaloa.

P. Navaratnarajah, for the applicant, appellant.

M. D. H. Jayawardene, for the defendant, respondent.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

July 14, 1948. BASNAYAKE J.-

The appellant who claims to be the wife of the respondent who is a Village Headman, asks for an allowance for her maintenance under section 2 of the Maintenance Ordinance, on the ground that the respondent has neglected to maintain her. The appellant and the respondent are Hindu Tamils residing in the Eastern Province. It appears that they were married according to Hindu rites on January 29, 1940. The appellant's case is supported by the evidence of several witnesses, such as the Village Headman of her division at the time of her marriage, a retired Apothecary and his wife, and one of the dhobies who performed certain customary functions at the wedding. The Village Headman and the Apothecary appear to be responsible and leading men in the area. The former is related to the respondent, and the latter to the appellant. They all testify to the fact that a marriage between the appellant and the respondent was celebrated, that the customary rites including the kalam and kurai ceremonies were performed, and that among the wedding guests were the Headman and teachers. But the witnesses state, and the appellant admits, that the thali ceremony was not performed. The respondent neither gave nor called evidence. The case therefore rests on the uncontradicted evidence of the appellant and her witnesses.

At the end of the appellant's case the proctor for the respondent produced a death certificate which he informed the court was the death certificate of the respondent's first wife. He stated that that certificate shows that the respondent's first wife died on October 2, 1940. If that be so the respondent's marriage with the appellant on January 29, 1940, was during the life-time of his first wife. The object of producing this

document appears to be to show that the marriage with the appellant is invalid by operation of section 17 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance which says: " No marriage shall be valid where either of the parties thereto shall have contracted a prior mar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document