P. S. DE SILVA. C.J.,
KULATUNGA, J. ANDRAMANATHAN, J.
S.C. APPEAL NO. 48/94
C. KANDY NO. 23/93M.C. TELDENIYA NO. 75/92SEPTEMBER 5, 1994.
Maintenance Ordinance – Section 13 – Objection to the validity of the application.Held:
The affidavit of the applicant alone constitutes sufficient compliance with Section13 of the Maintenance Ordinance.
APPEAL from the judgment of the High Court, Kandy.
Nimal Jayasinghe for appellant.
D. P. Abeysiriwardena with Thusitha Gamage for respondent.
Cur. adv. vuft.
P.S.DE SILVA, C.J.
This is an application for maintenance. The parties are admittedlymarried. The only point urged before us is that there is no applicationin terms of section 13 of the Maintenance Ordinance inasmuch asthere is only an affidavit before the Court. However, in the affidavitdated 19.8.91 filed of record the applicant has described herself as"the applicant*. Moreover, the affidavit sets out all facts which arematerial to her application for maintenance. We hold that the affidavitalone constitutes sufficient compliance with section 13 of theMaintenance Ordinance.
The point raised before us is of a highly technical nature and iswholly inappropriate in maintenance proceedings. In a maintenance
case the liability is of a civil nature, although the forum is theMagistrate’s Court. The Maintenance Ordinance was intended toprovide a speedy and an inexpensive mode for the enforcement of acivil liability, unfettered by technical objections. The High CourtJudge was correct in rejecting the objection taken in terms of section13 of the Ordinance.
We accordingly affirm the order of the High Court and dismiss theappeal. The appellant must pay Rs. 750/- as costs of appeal to theapplicant respondent.
KULATUNGA, J. -1 agree.
RAMANATHAN, J. -1 agree.
SENEVIRATNE BANDA v. CHANDRAWATHIE