( » )
ESTE v. SILVA.P. C., Galle, 3,179.
Maintenance—Ordinance No. 19 of 1889, s. 8—Terms of original order ofmaintenance—Subsequent order enlarging previous order.
Under section 8 of the Ordinance No. 19 of 1889, if a Police Magis-trate thinks that a child should be maintained until he or she attainsthe age of eighteen years, such time must be specified in the order ofthe Police Magistrate.
If an order is silent as to the time, it has no force after the subjectof the order has attained the age of fourteen years, and a subsequentorder extending the allowance for the maintenance until the childattains the age of eighteen years is ultra vires.
TN this case for maintenance, the defendant, in obedience to anorder of Court, had been paying monthly to his wife, the com-plainant, Rs. 6 for her maintenance'and that of his two children.Subsequently the defendant refused to pay for the maintenanceof his eldest daughter, on the ground that she had attained herfourteenth year. The Police Magistrate ordered that the main-tenance should be continued till the child attained her eighteenthyear, as she appeared to be not more than ten years, and was unableto earn her livelihood.
The defendant appealed.
Aserajjpa, for appellant.
27th March, 1895. WITHERS, J.—
This order must be vacated.
The Magistrate had no power to order the appellant to continuethe allowance to his daughter until she had attained the age ofeighteen years, inasmuch as that age had not been fixed in theoriginal order for the child’s maintenance.
The original order made on the 30th January, 1891, was basedon the sabmiBsion of the appellant to deposit Rs. 6 before the
( 23 )
10th February following, and a similar sum on every succeedingmonth before the 10th day of such month. The terms of thatorder were unlimited as to time. Now, section 8 of OrdinanceNo. 19 of 1889 enacts as follows :—
“ No order for an allowance for the maintenance of any child,“ legitimate or illegitimate, made in pursuance of this order shall,“except for the purpose of recovering money previously dne“ under such order, be of any force or validity after the child iu“ respect of whom it was made has attained the age of fourteen“years, and after tbe death of such child. Provided that the“ Police Magistrate may in the order direct that the payments to“ be made under it in respect of the child shall continue until thq“ child attains the age of eighteen years, in which cue such order“shall be in force until that period.”
It is clear that if a child has to be maintained until be or sheattains the age of eighteen years, that time must be limited in theoriginal order. As, however, the original order was silent as tothe time, it has no vigour after the subject of the order hasreached the age of fourteen years. An order cannot be madeupon an order.
ESTE v. SILVA