H. DHANAPALA, Petitioner, and W. J. P. BABY NONA, Respondent

010-NLR-NLR-V-77-H.-DHANAPALA-Petitioner-and-W.-J.-P.-BABY-NONA-Respondent.pdf


Dfuinapala v. Baby Nona
95
Present: Wijayatilake, J.
DHANAPALA, Petitioner, and W. J. P. BABY NONA,Respondent
S. C. 16/73—Application for Revision in M. C. Ratnapura, 71283
Maintenance Ordinance (Cap. 91), as amended by Act No. 19 of 1972—Section 2—Quantum of maintenance which can be awardedthereunder.
When an application for maintenance is made under section 2of the Maintenance Ordinance for the maintenance of a child, theCourt has no jurisdiction to award any sum in excess of thequantum claimed by the applicant.
PPLICATION to revise an order of the Magistrate’s Court,Ratnapura.
P. O. Wimalanaga, for the petitioner.
90
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Dhanapala v. Baby Nona
June 26, 1973. Wuayatilake, J.—
Mr. Wimalanaga, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitsthat although the applicant has prayed for only a sum of Rs. 40per month in respect of maintenance of her child the learnedMagistrate has made an award of Rs. 50 per month, Rs. 10 inexcess of her claim, which order is without jurisdiction. He hasdrawn my attention to Section 2 of the Maintenance Ordinance(Chapter 91) as amended by Maintenance Amendment Act No. 19of 1972. With regard to the income of the defendant and themeans and circumstances of the applicant or such child,Mr. Wimalanaga submits that the applicant would know bestand that it is not in the discretion of the learned Magistrate toaward any sum in excess of the quantum claimed by the appli-cant. I am in entire agreement with learned counsel and Iwould accordingly fix the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 40per month.
I make no order as to the costs of this appeal.
Order varied.