SHE was seeing two men when she became pregnant.

One of the men, thinking the child was his, proposed to her and married her.

But when he found out the baby was not his, he annulled the marriage.

Jane (not her real name) then sued her other lover for child maintenance.

The parties involved cannot be named under the law to protect her child's identity.

The case went before the Family Court earlier this year, where the details of Jane's relationships came under the spotlight.

The defendant, John (not his real name), 28, chose not to take the stand, but his case was that he did not sleep with Jane, 29, and that the child was not his.

In her judgment published this week, District Judge Jocelyn Ong said she did not condone Jane's past behaviour in sleeping with two men during the same period.

But she found that Jane was honest and sincere in court, having observed her on the stand.

Therefore, she ordered John to pay maintenance to Jane for the baby.

The amount of maintenance is to be fixed in another court hearing.

During the two-day trial, the court was told that Jane had a boyfriend, Bob, 33, in 2001.

A few months later, she got to know John and they started having sex.

In February 2002, Jane went to Brisbane, Australia, further her studies.

She kept in touch with Bob and John through regular phone calls, text messages and e-mails.

When she returned at the end of 2003, she continued her relationships with the two men.

It is not known if they knew of eachother.

She said she was closer to John as Bob, a pilot, was often not in Singapore.

HOLIDAY WITH JOHN

Jane went with John on holiday to Sydney in May 2005.

The following month, she discovered that she was pregnant.

The baby was born about eight months later.

Bob was with her during the pregnancy test. Thinking the child was his, he immediately proposed to her.

Jane said she went ahead with the wedding as it seemed the 'only solution' for her at the time.

John had told her earlier that he was not ready for marriage.

Cross-examined in court, Jane said: 'I married (Bob) because he was the one who was with me when the doctor did atest.

'The test was positive and (Bob) immediately proposed. And at that time, probably it was out of convenience... and it seemed the easiest way out.'

MARRIED BOB FOR SECURITY

When asked if she had married Bob for financial security, she replied: 'Partly'.

When the baby girl was born in January 2006, her blood type aroused Bob's suspicions about her paternity.

The following month, he did a DNA test and found that the baby was not his. So he took steps to annul the marriage.

They went their separate ways in June 2006.

The following year, Jane, represented by lawyer Krishnan Nadarajan, went to the Family Court, seeking child maintenance from John.

She said it was not easy to be a single parent and she wasn't able to support the child.

'So all I ask is for her biological father to help me with just a few hundred dollars a month. That's all... so that my child can have a more secure future,' she said.

Besides, she added, she wants the child to know who her father is.

She submitted photos of her and John on holiday, which indicated that they had an intimate relationship.

APPEAL

John, represented by lawyer Irving Choh, argued that under the law, the child is presumed to be Bob's, as Jane had been married to him at the time of the birth.

He also argued that there was no way to rule out the possibility that Jane had more than two sex partners at thetime.

But Judge Ong dismissed his arguments and allowed Jane's claim.

John is appealing against the judgment.