ABEYESUJslJJERE, J.—Jayasena v. Bandara Menike
1963Present: Herat, J., and Abeyesundere, J.
W. M. JAYASENA, Appellant, and H. M. BANDARA MENIKE,
S. G. 264161—D. C. Kurunegala, 1271
Kandyan Marriage and Divorce Act—Dissolution of marriage thereunder—Power ofDistrict Registrar to include an order of maintenance in favour of the wife—Sections 2, 32, 33 (7), 69.
When a marriage contracted before 1st August 1954 is dissolved under theprovisions of the Kandyan Marriage and Divorce Act, the provisions ofsection 69, read with section 33 (7), of the Act permit the District Registrarto include in the order of dissolution of the marriage a provision requiringthe husband to pay a certain sum monthly as maintenance to the wife.
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kurunegala.
N. E. Weerasooria, Q.C., with W. Wimalachandra and M. T. M.Sivardeen, for the Respondent-Appellant.
T.B. Dissanayake, for the Petitioner-Respondent.
October 24, 1963. Abeyestjndeee, J.—
In this case the respondent-appellant and the petitioner-respondentwere married on 20th September, 1953, and their marriage was dissolvedon 17th July, 1959, under the provisions of the Kandyan Marriage andDivorce Act which came into force on 1st August, 1954.
Section 2 of that Act provides that the provisions of that Act shallnot, unless otherwise expressly provided therein, apply to marriagescontracted before the appointed date. The appointed date is 1stAugust, 1954.
Section 69 of the aforesaid Act provides that a marriage registeredunder the Kandyan Marriage Ordinance may be dissolved on all or anyof the grounds specified in section 32 of that Act, and accordingly forthat purpose and that purpose only the provisions of Part IV of that Actshall apply in like manner and to the same extent as they applyto Kandyan marriages.
The District Registrar had in this case included in the order of dissolu-tion of the marriage the provision requiring the respondent-appellantwho was the husband to pay Rs. 25 monthly as maintenance to thepetitioner-respondent who was the wife. This order for maintenanceappears to have been made under subsection (7) of section 33 which isin Part IV of the aforesaid Act.
Dahalan v. Toosoof
Mr. N. E. Weerasooria, Q.C., who appeared for the respondent-appellant•argued that, by reason of the provisions of section 69, only section 32•of Part IV of the aforesaid Act, which specifies the grounds for divorce,applied and not the other sections of that Part. He contended that theprovision for the maintenance of the wife incorporated in the order ofdissolution of the marriage was invalid as it had been made withoutjurisdiction.
We are unable to agree with Mr. Weerasooria’s interpretation ofsection 69 of the aforesaid Act. Our view is that, for all purposesconnected with the dissolution of a marriage, the provisions of Part IVof the aforesaid Act are applicable under section 69 of that Act. TheDistrict Registrar had therefore jmisdiction to include in the orderof dissolution of the marriage the provision he had made in regard tothe maintenance of the wife.
We dismiss the appeal with cost"
Herat, J. —I agree.
I. W. M. JAYASENA, Appellant, and H.M. BANDARA MENIKE, Respondent