MApDONELL C.J.—Rodrigo v. Rodrigo.
1931Present: Macdonell C.J.BODRIGO v. RODRIGO.
335—P. 0. Colombo, 14,564.
No. 19 of 1889, s. 3.
Maintenance contemplated in section 3 of the Maintenance Ordinance includes thecost of education.
^^PPEAL from an order of the Police Magistrate of Colombo.
F. A. Hayley, K.C. (with him Navaratnam), for appellant.
R. L. Pereira, K.C. (with him Rajapakse), for respondent.
November 9, 1931. Macdonell C.J.—
In this appeal I reserved judgment on the question whether the word** maintenance " in section 3 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1889 was wideenough to cover education. JEtere it had been argued that in making the .
MACDONELL C.J.—Rodrigo v. Rodrigo.
order of maintenance under that section the Magistrate had no power,in fixing the amount to be paid monthly, to take into account theeducational needs of the children to be affected • by the order; as theygrew older their schooling would cost more, but this increased cost intheir education must not be reflected in any order against the father formaintenance under the section. I have examined cases for what seemsto be the local practice on the matter, from which it is clear that it hasbeen the practice to increase a maintenance order with the increasingeducational* requirements of the child affected. There is no authoritythat I can discover which prevents it being held that the word 44 mainte-nance ” in the section is wide enough to cover education, and to holdotherwise would be to give the word a very restricted application. If afather maintains his children himself, part of that maintenance will befor the education of them, the cost increasing as the children grow older.The father does not say, 4‘ When John was a year old he needed noschooling or expenditure thereon, therefore John needs none now that heis 10 years old ”, nor does he argue that the schooling expenses of Johnwhen 15 must be rigidly kept to what they were when he was 10. This. is surely reasonable, and as far as the authorities go, it certainly seemsopen to me to hold that the word 44 maintenance ” in section 3 is wideenough to cover 44 education ”, and it would, I think, be taking anunreasonably narrow view of what seems to be the intention of the*Statute were I to rule otherwise.
This was really the whole point in this appeal. The Magistrate hadmade an order, and in argument for the respondent it was suggested as acompromise that Rs. 60 per month be deducted from the ampunt of theMagistrate’s order, but this is just about the amount that the schoolingof the three children affected by this order will come to. If so, I cannotinterfere with the order.
The appeal must be dismissed with costs.
RODRIGO v. RODRIGO