SOERTSZ J.—Umina Saidu v. Hasim Marikar.1C5
1941Present : Soertsz J.
UMMA SAIDU v. HASIM MARIKAR481—Kathi Court, 172'74.
Muslim Marriage anti Divorce Registration Ordinance (Cap. 99), s. 21 (3)—Maintenance proceedings, schedule HI., rule 10.
Rule 10 of Part I of the third schedule to the Muslim Marriage Regis-tration Ordinance does not apply to maintenance proceedings.
PPEAL from an order of the Board of Kathis.
L. A. Rajapakse (with him S. A. Marikar), for the respondent,appellant.
S. Seyed. Ahamed., for the applicant, respondent.
September 16, 1941. Soertsz J.—
This is an appeal with the leave of this Court, granted on aTpreviousoccasion, from an order of the Board of Kathis affirming an order madein regard to maintenance by a Kathi Court. The proceedings wereinstituted by a woman who sought to obtain maintenance in respect of anillegitimate child of hers whose father she alleged was the respondent.The Kathi Court found that the respondent was, as alleged, the fatherof the child and directed him to pay the sum of Rs. 10 a month on accountof the maintenance of that child. The Board of Kathis affirmed thatfinding, as I have already indicated.
’On this appeal, Counsel for appellant took two points. He contended,in the first place, that these proceedings were vitiated by reason of the
HEARNE J.—Ukkurala v. Ewonsia.
fact that the witnesses who gave evidence before the fcathi in questionin this case had failed to sign the order. He also contended that inregard to the amount decreed, viz., Rs. 10 a month that it was excessiveand that there was no evidence before the Board' of Kathis or the KathiCourt to show that the man could pay such an amount.
Counsel for respondent has invited my attention to the fact that rule 10of Part I. of schedule HI. which Counsel for appellant invokes in supportof his first point is really a rule made primarily applicable to an orderin a divorce case. But' in regard to proceedings such as these, namely,maintenance proceedings, the section goes on to say that mutatis mutandisrule 10 of Part I. of schedule HI. will apply. It is quite clear from thecontext that the order which rule 10, Part I., schedule III. requires to beattested not only by the Kathi but also by the husband and wife and thewitnesses applies to an order made in a divorce proceedings and such arequirement cannot be enforced in proceedings such as these for severalreasons.
So far as the matter of the amount of maintenance is concerned, ithas also been brought to my notice that by the provision of the relevantOrdinance the persons chosen as assessors are persons who have intimateknowledge of the parties concerned coming as they do from the localityin which the parties concerned live. In those circumstances they arein a peculiarly strong position to be able to make an order with regardto the quantum, of maintenance and when persons such as those havemade an order it would be very difficult indeed for this Court to interferewith that order. Acting on this principle I refuse to make any alterationin regard to the amount.
In a word, the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
UMMA SAIDU v. HASIM MARIKAR