138-NLR-NLR-V-23-JEERISHAMY-v.-DAVITH-SINNO.pdf
( 466 )
1921.
Present: Ennis J.
JEERISHAMY v. DAVTFH SINNO.
81S—P. C. Tungalla. 766.
Maintenance—Application for maintenance of children—Dismissal '*/'application as applicant vxts absent—Subsequent application—Res judicatr.—Does appeal lie against refusal to order maintenance.
The dismissal of an application for maintenance for childrenon the ground that applicant was absent is no bar to a freshapplication.
Where a subsequent application was dismissed without inquiry.Held, that there was no appeal against the order. The applicantwas directed to make a fresh application in the Police Cotirt.
rpHK facts appear from the judgment.
Soertsz, for the appellant.
Keuneman, for the respondent.
September 6,1921. Ennis J.—
This is an appeal from an order refusing to grant an applicationfor maintenance.
%
It appears that the appellant had been in 1913 granted mainte-nance for herself and one child at the rate of Rs. 12*60 per month.
The connsd for the appellant contends that sometime afterwardsthe parties were reconciled, and that two other children were bomto them.
On April 20, 1920, the appellant applied for maintenance inrespect of these two children. At the date fixed for hearing she wasabsent, and her application was dismissed on April 24,1920. Sheapplied again on May 11, 1920, and once more in her absence herapplication was dismissed on June 14. She applied again on April26,1921, and on this occasion the respondent appeared and deniedthe paternity of the children. The case, however, did not proceedto trial, and was dismissed on August 1,1921. The present appealis from this dismissal.
On studying the case of Ana Perera v. EmaUano Nonis1 it wouldseem that there was nothing to prevent the appellant from makinga fresh application to the Court on the same cause of action, providedthere is no bar as mentioned in the Ordinance, bat it would seemthat there is no appeal from an order made.
1 {1910) 12 N. L. B. 263.
( 467 )
In the circumstances 1 would dismiss the oy>]v-:{ ;*> the applicantcan make a fresh application which should ihen he heard on itpmerits, and not dismissed on the ground that the decision on aprevious occasion was iin<il. Each side should pay its own costs. .
of dismissed.
1921.
Ess is J.
r Dnvith6'inno