MACDONELL C.J.—Sivakaman v. Velupillai.
Present: Macdonell C.J.
SIVAKAMAN v. VELUPILLAI.
753—P. C. Kayts, 6,781.
Maintenance—Arrears for eighteen months—Warrant against defaulter forwhole sum—Ordinance No. 19 of 1889, ss. 3 and 9.
Where the respondent to maintenance proceedings was in arrears fora period of eighteen months and the Magistrate, in issuing a warrantfor the recovery of arrears, awarded a term of six months’ imprisonmentin default of payment,—
Held, that the warrant was regular under section 9 of the MaintenanceOrdinance.
^^PPEAL from an order of the Police Magistrate of Kayts.
V. Thillainathan, for defendant, appellant.
November 3, -1931. Macdonell C.J.—
I reserved judgment in this matter, because I was not quite certainof the meaning of section 9 of the Maintenance Ordinance, No. 33 of 1889.
In this case the respondent against whom a maintenance order to payeach month had been made under section 3 fell into arrears for eighteenmonths. A warrant was taken out against him under section 9 for thewhole of the eighteen months’ maintenance due, and in default of paymenthe was awarded imprisonment for six months. It was admitted in argu-ment that if a warrant had been taken out at the end of each one of thoseieighteen months and the respondent had received a month’s imprisonmentunder each one of those warrants this would have been perfectly lawfulunder section 9. I do not see that mere fact that one warrant hasbeen issued for the whole amount at all invalidates what the Magistratehas done. The Magistrate has not made order of imprisonment beyondthe six months which the law allows him in default of payment.
The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs.
SIVAKAMAN v. VELUPILLAI