( 194 )
PINCHOH MY v. DE SILVA.P. C„ Galle, 11,088.,
Ordinance No. 19 of 1889—Cancellation of order for maintenance—Appeal-able order.
No appeal lies from an order cancelling an order for maintenancemade in terms of the Ordinance No. 19 of 1889.
N this case ot maintenance it appeared that in obedience tothe order dated 27th November, 1893, the husband had been
paying maintenance to his wife until the 10th February, 1898.In that month he represented to the Police Court that his wifehad been and was then living in adultery with a person whom henamed, and moved that the order against him be cancelled.The Magistrate held his allegations proved and cancelled theorder.
The wife appealed.
Bawa, for appellant.
Van Langenberg, for respondent.
Browne, A.J.—It has been objected that no appeal lies againstthe order under the decision reported in 2 G. L. R. 88, and asargument thereon it was submitted (in addition to the groundsdiscussed in the decision) that an appeal under the CriminalProcedure Code would lie, for that the true effect of section 17 ofthe Ordinance No. 19 of 1889 was only to remove the restrictionof section 405 of the Code, that no appeal from a Police Courtshall be> maintainable iD respect of a fine not exceeding Bs. 25, soas to allow of an appeal in respect of a sum (as here) of Bs. 5.
Contra it was submitted that the Ordinance contained itsown special procedure for its purpose, which is not of a purelycriminal character, and the rules of criminal procedure do notapply.
I do not see it is open to me, after the collective decision cited,to discuss thesei questions or rule thereon. That decision limitedthe right of appeal in such proceedings -to two cases only, wherean order for monthly allowance had been made or where summonshas been refused. The present is not either of these cases, andtherefore no appeal lies.
PINCHOHAMY v. DE SILVA