137-NLR-NLR-V-56-S.-D.-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-MILLY-NONA-Respondent.pdf
Fernando v. Alilti/ Nona
649
1064Present : Pulle J.
S. D. FERNANDO, Appellant, and MILLY NONA, RespondentS. C. 876—A. M. C. Colombo, 19,878Maintenance—A plication by wife—Presence of husband's mother—Is it a validground ?'
In an application for maintenance made by a wife—
Held, that the bare faot that the husband’s inothor was in the sumo hoiiao wasnot a sufliciont reason for the wife’s refusal to live with him.
^LPPEAL from a judgment of the Additional Magistrate’s Court,Colombo.
K.A. ft. de Silva, for the defendant-appellant. ’
Jf. L. S. Jayasekera, with B. E. de Silva, for the applicant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
fifiO
VUbLE J.—.f’ernnntlo v. MiUy Nona
May 24, ]‘>r»4. 1’itt.m .T.—
Illthis cast; the husband, who is the appellant, has been ordered tef, payIts. 80 as maintenance for his wife and Its. 15 for a child. Whether thewifo’s refusal to live with the husband is reasonable or not, the order inrespect of tho child must stand.
The husband offered to live with the wife in a house taken by him hutslie refused tho offer on tho ground that his mother was living in thathouse. She was prepared to accept the offer, if he sent away his mother.The husband refused. The learned Magistrate without taking anyevidence then made the order :
“ Ho cannot compel- applicant to live with his mother. So the appli-cant’s refusal to go back to him is not unreasonable. Therefore, he has topay maintenance. ”
In my opinion the bare fact that the husband’s mother was in the samehouse wras not a sufficient reason for the wife’s refusal to live with him.There arc authorities which support this proposition and I need refer onlyto Rosa v. Adonisa l. Tho cases decided in England are also to the sameoffect.
I do not wish to suggest in advance the sort of circumstances in which itwould be unreasonable for tho husband in this case to compel the ivifo tolive with him. The case should go back for adjudication upon evidoncc oftho issue whether tho wife without any sufficient reason refuses to livowith her husband.
Tho order for maintenance in favour of the wifo is set aside, pro forma.There will be no order as to costs.
Case sent back for further evidence.