Prosper v. Mary (PC) Civ. App. 115-D-69; (no date) ……

 

Prosper v. Mary (PC) Civ. App. 115-D-69; (no date) ……

The respondent gave birth to a child of which the appellant is the father, it being born out of wedlock. The District Court, reversing the Primary Court’s decision, gave custody of the infant (about eighteen months old) to the respondent. After the District Magistrate had delivered the judgment, the appellant informed the court that he would not deliver the custody of the child.

            Held: (1) “It is not disputed that the child was born out of wedlock and prima facie the child therefore belongs to the other’s family. Upon a consideration of the ultimate welfare of the child, I am of opinion that the Order of the District Court is correct for that the mother has both the financial resources and ability to bring it up properly.” (2) “The respondent is to have reasonable access to the child after it has been placed in the custody of the respondent.” (3) “I understand from the respondent that the appellant still retains custody of the child in defiance of the Order of the District Court, dispute a copy of the District Court’s Order having been served upon him. I therefore direct that the judgment of this Court in this appeal be read in open Court in the presence of the respondent, or a coy thereof be served upon him and that five days thereafter, should he fail to comply with such judgment the respondent be at liberty to apply for execution of the judgment, in the normal manner. Any prevention or interference on the part of the appellant with such execution will of course render him liable to prosecution for obstructing the execution of a process under the provisions of the Penal Code.” (4) Appeal dismissed.