IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
In the matter of an application under and in term s of
Article 154P (6) of the Constitution of the
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri lanka read with
Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
Anagipura Padmini Jayasinghe
Warakakolia, Meegama, Darga Town.
Applicant
Case No. CA (PHC) 112/2012 Vs.
H.C. Kaluthara Case No. 51/2009 (REV)
M.C. Mathugama Case No. 33513/Maintenance
Pemaththu Hewage Rathnaweera
Kambarawatta, Athkandura.
Respondent
AND BETWEEN
Anagipura Padmini Jayasinghe
Warakakolia, Meegama, Darga Town.
Applicant-Petitioner
Vs.
Pemaththu Hewage Rathnaweera
Kambarawatta, Athkandura.
Respondent-Respondent
AND NOW BETWEEN
Pemaththu Hewage Rathnaweera
Kambarawatta, Athkandura.
Respondent-Respondent-Appellant
Vs.
Anagipura Padmini Jayasinghe
Warakakolia, Meegama, Darga Town.
Applicant-Petitioner-Respondent
Page 1 of 3
Before: K.K. Wickremasinghe J.
Janak De Silva J.
Counsel:
Ranga Dayananda for Respondent-Respondent-Appellant
Applicant-Petitioner-Respondent absent and unrepresented
Written Submissions tendered on:
Respondent-Respondent-Appellant on 16.10.2018
Decided on: 07.02.2020
Janak De Silva J.
This is an appeal against the order of the learned Provincial High Court Judge of the Western
Province holden in Kaluthara dated 26.07.2012.
The question before Court is whether the Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction in terms of the
Maintenance Act No. 37 of 1999 (Act) to enforce an order for alimony made by the District Court.
The Respondent-Respondent-Appellant (Appellant) and the Applicant-Petitioner-Respondent
(Respondent) got married on 24.10.1996 and have one son. The Respondent instituted action
against the Appellant in the District Court of Mathugama in case no. 2881 seeking a divorce on
the ground of malicious desertion and on 02.11.2006 judgment was entered in favour of the
Respondent who was also granted Rs. 300,000/= as permanent alimony.
The Appellant failed to pay the permanent alimony and the Respondent instituted action in M.e.
Mathugama in term s of the Act to recover the sum of Rs. 300,000/= which was disallowed. The
Respondent moved in revision to the Provincial High Court Judge of the Western Province holden
in Kaluthara which allowed the application. Hence this appeal.
The learned High Court Judge held that the Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to recover any
alimony ordered by the District Court in terms of sect ion 624A of the Civil Procedure Code which
reads:
"An order for alimony or maintenance made under this chapter may be enforced either
in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance or in the manner provided in the
Maintenance Ordinance."
Page 2 of3
•
The parties are not at variance on whether an order for alimony or maintenance made under
chapter XLII of the Civil Procedure Code can be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code. The issue is whether such an order can be enforced by the Magi strate's
Court in accordance with the provi sions of the Act.
The Maintenance Ordinance was repealed by section 19 of the Act. Where in any written law or
document reference is made to any written law which is subsequently repealed , such reference
shall be deemed to be made to the written law by which the repeal is effected or to the
corresponding portion thereof [Section 16(1) of the Interpretation Ordinance). This section
applies to written laws and documents made before as well as after the commencement of the
Interpretation Ordinance [Section 16(2) of the Interpretation Ordinance) .
Therefore, section 624A of the Civil Procedure Code can be read to include a reference to the Act .
Yet the question is whether the Act vests the Magistrate' s Court with jurisdiction to enforce an
order for alimony made by the District Court.
Part I of the Act deals with who can make an application for maintenance and the grounds on
which it can be allowed. Part II dea ls with the enforcement of orders for maintenance. Section
5(1) refers to enforcement of orders but is limited to any person against whom an order is made
under section 2 or the proviso to section 11 (1) of the Act. It does not include the enforcement of
an order for alimony or maintenance mad e under chapter XLII of the Civil Procedure Code.
Accordingly, I hold that the Magistrate's Court does not have jurisdiction to enforce an order for
alimony or maintenance made under chapter XLII of the Civil Procedure Code.
For the foregoing reasons, I set aside the order of the learned Provincial High Court Judge of the
Western Province holden in Kaluthara dated 26.07.2012. The parties shall bear their costs.
Judge of the Court of Appeal
K.K. Wickremasi nghe J.
I agree.
Judge ofthe Court of Appeal
Page 3 of 3
