Court convicted father of willful alimentary evasion and sentenced him to three months suspended imprisonment with work obligation.

The court convicted the defendant of willful evasion of alimentary obligations for two distinct periods and imposed a combined sentence of three months' imprisonment. The prosecution argued that the defendant's failure to work and maintain contact with the child demonstrated bad will, while the defense contended that maintaining contact should mitigate the penalty. The court rejected the defense's argument, ruling that the suspended sentence with a mandatory work obligation was the appropriate measure to ensure the child's support.