IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application in terms of Section 4(1)(c) read with Section 2(1) of the Maintenance Act No.27 of 1999.

Thilaka Wadasinghe Liyanarathnage

37, Somaweera Chandrasiripura, Mampe, Piliyandala.

Applicant Vs.

Hudson Samarasinghe, 255/B/11, Torrington Garden, Torrington Mawatha, Colombo 07 Respondent S.C. Appeal No.22/2020 SC/SPL/LA No. 101/2018 C.A. No. CA(PHC) APN 86/09 H.C. Colombo Case No. HCRA/29/07 M.C. Colombo No. 3828/03/04 And In the matter of an application in terms of Article 154/P of the Constitution read with the High Court of the Provinces (Special)

Provisions) Act, Hudson Samarasinghe, 255/B/11, Torrington Garden, Torrington Mawatha, Colombo 07 Respondent-Petitioner Vs.

Thilaka Wadasinghe Liyanarathnage

37, Somaweera Chandrasiripura, Mampe, Piliyandala.

Applicant-Respondent And Between In the matter of an application in terms of Article 138(1) of the Constitution and section 11(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special)

Provisions) Act, No.19 of 1990.

Hudson Samarasinghe, 255/B/11, Torrington Garden, Torrington Mawatha, Colombo 07 Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs.

Thilaka Wadasinghe Liyanarathnage

37, Somaweera Chandrasiripura, Mampe, Piliyandala.

Applicant-Respondent-Respondent And Now Between In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 128(1) of the Constitution Hudson Samarasinghe, 255/B/11, Torrington Garden, Torrington Mawatha, Colombo 07 Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-

Appellant Vs.

Thilaka Wadasinghe Liyanarathnage

37, Somaweera Chandrasiripura, Mampe, Piliyandala.

Applicant-Respondent-Respondent-

Repondent BEFORE : E.A.G.R. AMARASEKARA, J.

ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J.

COUNSEL : Kuwera de Zoysa P.C. with Sumedha Mahawanniarachchi & Nishan Balasooriya for the Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant Sandamal Rajapakse with Sachintha Rodrigo for the Applicant-Respondent-Respondent -

Respondent ARGUED ON : 08th June, 2022 DECIDED ON : 28th May, 2025 ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

This is an appeal arising out of an order made by the Magistrate’s Court, by overruling a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent- Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) in relation to a maintenance application made by the Applicant- Respondent-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) against him under the Maintenance Act No. 37 of 1999.

Since the pronouncement of the said order by the Magistrate’s Court and after a long an arduous journey through a multitude of litigation processes, finally the question of legality of the said ruling made by the Magistrate’s Court and the refusal of the Provincial High Court as well as the Court of Appeal to set it aside by exercising revisionary jurisdiction, had reached this Court for determination.

Since the litigation history between the parties had resulted in an heavily entangled web of Court proceedings commencing from the original Court and thereupon traversing through all the way up to the apex Court, for the purpose of avoiding any impression of inconsistency that might arise in the mind of the reader due to repetitive references made to these multiple processes of litigation at different stages in the course of this judgment, I shall endeavour to make a presentation, albeit brief, of the important factual events in relation to the instant appeal and the corresponding step in the relevant legal proceedings and to arrange them in chronological order, in an attempt to ensure a cohesive judgment. In my view this is an essential step that should be taken, even before I consider the several questions of law on which the Counsel were heard, during the hearing of this appeal.

The Appellant entered into a contract of marriage with the Respondent on 17.06.1985, after complying with the statutory provisions contained in the Marriage Registration Ordinance.

The Appellant was charged by the Magistrate’s Court in case No.

56041/01/93 for committing the