Plus
17th September 2000
Front Page
News/Comment
Editorial/Opinion| Business| Sports|
Sports Plus| Mirror Magazine
The Sunday Times on the Web
Line

Law and Citizen

I didn't 

By Dr. C. Ananda Grero
People make various forms of promises. Some have a legal effect on the parties and violation of them leads to certain consequences. Section 19 (3) of the Marriage (General) Registration Ordinance states: No action shall lie for the recovery of damages for breach of promise of marriage, unless such promise of marriage shall have been made in writing.

The same section states that nothing shall prevent any person aggrieved from suing for or recovering in any court, damages which are lawfully recoverable for breach of promise of marriage, for seduction, or for any other cause. However if there is a breach of promise of marriage, damages could be recovered only if such promise is made in writing.

Thus one can see that the consequences of a breach of promise of marriage would be, that the party who caused the breach of promise of marriage will be liable to be sued to recover damages.

Citizen Saman Kumar's parents arranged a marriage through the customary way i.e. by making a proposal for their son to marry Miss Damayanthi, a teacher by profession. The preliminary negotiations in regard to the proposal having proceeded satisfactorily, September 10, 1990 was fixed for the notice of marriage. On this day the ceremony took place, rings were exchanged and Rs. 20,000 as part of the agreed dowry was handed over to Saman Kumar by Damayanthi's father.

On October 10, 1990, Saman Kumar attended by his parents, his two brothers and two other relations visited Damayanthi's home bringing a printed "Nekath Paper" giving the auspicious date of marriage, the time of poruwa ceremony and the registration time and this was read in the presence of all the members of Damayanthi's family by an uncle of Saman Kumar and handed over by the latter to her father.

Saman Kumar thereafter regularly visited Damayanthi until December 4, 1990. Their wedding was to take place on December 8. But without Damayanthi's knowledge Saman Kumar secretly married a wealthy girl, one Miss Padma on December 6, 1990. 

Meanwhile preparations proceeded for Damayanthi's wedding and on the 8th, attired in her bridal dress, she eagerly awaited the arrival of Saman Kumar. All her relations were present and the "poruwa" too was ready. The auspicious time passed, but the bridegroom did not turn up. Finally a letter was delivered to Damayanthi's father which said that Saman Kumar had changed his mind about marrying his daughter over a misunderstanding about the dowry. Poor Damayanthi suffered great pain of mind, humiliation and disgrace in the eyes of her friends and relations and her chances of marriage were blasted.

She then sued Saman Kumar on two causes of action, namely breach of promise of marriage and for the injuria caused to her as a result of pain of mind, humiliation and disgrace which she had to suffer on the day fixed for the wedding.

The defendant Saman Kumar admitted that notice of marriage was given, but denied that a promise of marriage was given in writing and futher said, that the plaintiff's (Damayanthi's) father had promised Rs. 150,000 as dowry on the day the engagement took place, but had only given Rs. 20,000. Due to this fraud and deception, he had decided not to marry her and had informed her father orally of his decision. He prayed that her action be dismissed.

The District Judge who heard this case believed the evidence of plaintiff (Damayanthi) and disbelieved the evidence of the defendant (Saman Kumar). He awarded damages, of Rs. 25,000, on the first cause of action and Rs. 25,000 on the second cause of action. The defendant Saman Kumar appealed against this judgment. A very similar case was argued before two judges of the Supreme Court, namely, Justice Weerasooriya and Justice H.N.G. Fernando and this case Muthukuda V. Sumanawathie is reported in 65 New Law Reports at page 205.

The plaintiff's (Damayanthi's) case was heavily dependant upon P1 the "Nekath Paper" as it was regarded as a document containing a promise of marriage which satisfied the provisions of section 19 (3) of the Registration of Marriage Ordinance. In fact the District Judge held that it (Nekath paper) constituted a promise of marriage.

In the appeal, the counsel for the appellant (like Saman Kumar) argued that P1 is not a promise of marriage and therefore the District Judge was wrong in holding it as a promise of marriage. Justice Weerasooriya who wrote the judgment of the Supreme Court referring to this "Nekath paper", P1 said that the contents of this Nekath Paper clearly indicated that all steps were taken on the particular day to come to the house of the bride (like Damayanthi) and ascend the bridal throne (poruwa) at the auspicious time to take her hand in the presence of all relations of both sides. Cloths, jewellery, were to be offered to her and betel given to relations according to Sinhala customs and rites. Justice Weerasooriya said, "There is not only a declaration of intention to do the acts specified (as stated above), but there is also an undertaking or assurance that they will be performed. In my opinion P1 constitutes a promise to marry." He also held that the evidence led at the trial proved that P1, the "Nekath paper" was prepared at the request of the defendant (like Saman Kumar). 

He had got it printed, and brought it to the plaintiff's house (i.e. in that case Sumanawathie) and it was read in the presence of all who were there on this day at the plaintiff's house and handed over to her father. Justice Weerasooriya held that the finding of the District Judge that all the circumstances supported that P1 was a promise made by the defendant to the plaintiff. (i.e. Sumanawathie in that case) was correct and it was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Dealing with section 19 (3) of the Marriage (General) Registration Ordinance i.e. regarding an action that lies for breach of promise of marriage, Justice Weerasooriya said that the construction of the section does not mean, that the acceptance of the promise to marry also has to be in writing. He held that acceptance may be made by the unequivocal conduct of the parties and by a definite understanding between them that a marriage is to take place. 

He concluded that the conduct of both the plaintiff and defendant (like Damayanthi and Saman Kumar) subsequent to P1 being brought, read, and given, established that acceptance of it could be inferred.

Finally whether the plaintiff (like Damayanthi) could recover damages on the second cause of action was considered by the Supreme Court. The Court held that it is in respect of pain of mind, humiliation and disgrace suffered by the plaintiff (like Damayanthi) as a result of the events of the wedding day, for which the defendant (like Saman Kumar) was responsible and which caused injuria (injury) to the plaintiff independently of the breach of promise of marriage, Justice Weerasooriya and Justice H.N.G. Fernando (later Chief Justice) confirmed the judgment of the District Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Thus, Saman Kumar cannot succeed in his appeal and he has to pay damages as ordered by the District Judge to Damayanthi. (All names are fictitious)

Index Page
Front Page
News/Comments
Editorial/Opinion
Business
Sports
Sports Plus
Mirrror Magazine
Line

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents

Line

Plus Archives

Front Page| News/Comment| Editorial/Opinion| Plus| Business| Sports| Sports Plus| Mirror Magazine

Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to 

The Sunday Times or to Information Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.

Presented on the World Wide Web by Infomation Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.
Hosted By LAcNet