Gadiel v. Dainess Crim. App. 508-A-1971; 3/3/1972; Bramble, J.

 

Gadiel v. Dainess Crim. App. 508-A-1971; 3/3/1972; Bramble, J.

A maintenance order was made against the appellant on his admission that he was the father of the respondent’s child. The issue raised was one of validity of the maintenance order which had retrospective effect, under s.3 (c) of the Affiliation Ordinance.

            Held: (1) “The plaint was filed on the 14^th January, 1967 and the learned magistrate made an order for maintenance case was concluded. There are no provisions for making an order retroactive unless the application is made before the birth of the child or within two months of the birth in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Ordinance. There was in this respect a serious misdirection in law with respect to the part of the order which provides for payment for the period mentioned above and it must be set aside. The order can only be effective from the date of the determination of the case.” (2) “The rest of the order which provides for the payment of 40/= monthly for the maintenance and education of the child will stand. It states, however, that payment must be made until the puberty of the child but he Ordinance is more specific when it says until the child is sixteen years. I amend the order accordingly.”