Rowel v. Dabrera (Gunasekera, J.)
Sri Lanka Law Reports
119891 2 Sri LR
After the passage of the Judicature (Amendment) Act, No. 71 of 1981, certified on 18November 1981, jurisdiction to hear maintenance applications was re-vested in theMagistrate's Court. The jurisdiction of the Family Court in respect of maintenancematters under the Maintenance Ordinance has been taken away by Act. No. 71 of1981.
APPEAL from order of the Magistrate's Court, Chilaw.
P. R. Vikramanayake for respondent – appellantM. Devasagayam for applicant – respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 6, 1989.
In this case the Applicant-Respondent claimed maintenance forherself and her three children from the Respondent-Appellant. At theinquiry as it transpired that the elder child who was a male hadattained majority and. was employed, the claim was limited for thepayment of maintenance for the Applicant-Respondent and her twominor children. After inquiry the learned Magistrate has made anorder for the payment of maintenance in a sum of Rs. 1,500 permonth in respect of the two female children till they attain majority -payment to be made from the date 'of the application.
At the hearing of this appeal the main contention of the learnedcounsel for the Respondent-Appellant was that the learnedMagistrate's order was bad for the reason that the Magistrate's Courtof Chilaw had no jurisdiction for the reason that there was a FamilyCourt at Chilaw. It was contented on behalf of the appellant that byvirtue of Sec. 24 Subsection (1) of the Judicature Act that the^ properforum which had jurisdiction to entertain a claim for maintenance inthis case was the Family Court in Chilaw. This contention of thecounsel for the Appellant has no merit for the reason that theJudicature Amendment Act, 71 of 81 which was certified on 18November 1981 took away the jurisdiction of the Family Court inrespect of maintenance matters under the Maintenance Ordinanceand re-vested jurisdiction in respect of maintenance claims in theMagistrate's Courts. Therefore I hold that the Magistrate's Court ofChilaw had jurisdiction to hear and determine this application. At theinquiry before the Magistrate the Applicant gave evidence and calledher daugther Sujeewa Dabrera and the Respondent’s brother
Sal'-Nona v. Maggie Silva
Benedict Dabrera to testify on her behalf whilst theRespondent-Appellant did not call any evidence to refute the claimmade by the Applicant-Respondent. The learned Magistrate havingconsidered the evidence led before him has comei to a strong findingof facts in ordering the payment of maintenance. The learned counselfor the Applicant-Respondent has drawn my attention to the evidenceof the Respondent-Appellant.
The learned Magistrate has taken into consideration .the totality ofthe evidence led before him and in my view has come to a properassessment in regard to the quantum of maintenance to be paid bythe Respondent-Appellant. I see no reason to interfere with the orderof the learned Magistrate and therefore I dismiss this appeal.
Revision application 404/86 was also taken up with this appeal andin view of the conclusion I have arrived at, in this appeal I refuse thatapplication also.
ROWEL v. DABRERA