IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Susantha Ranasinghe, Alahenegama, Alahenegama.

Plaintiff SC/APPEAL/31/2018 NWP/HCCA/KUR/57/2014(F) Vs.

DC NIKAWERETIYA NO: 76/D Rathugamage Ancy Fernando, Hiriwewa, Kobeigane.

Defendant AND BETWEEN Rathugamage Ancy Fernando, Hiriwewa, Kobeigane. Defendant-Appellant Vs.

Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Susantha Ranasinghe, Alahenegama, Alahenegama.

Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Rathugamage Ancy Fernando, Hiriwewa, Kobeigane.

Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs.

Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Susantha Ranasinghe, Alahenegama, Alahenegama.

Plaintiff-Respondent-

Respondent Before: Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena Counsel: Sapumal Bandara with Vishmi Yapa Abeywardena for the Defendant-Appellant-Appellant.

Rasika Dissanayake with Shabbir Hassim for the Plaintiff-

Respondent-Respondent.

Written Submissions:

By the Defendant-Appellant-Appellant on 06.04.2018 By the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent on 09.05.2019 Argued on: 14.03.2024 Written Submissions:

By the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent on 04.04.2024 Decided on: 10.05.2024 Samayawardhena, J.

The plaintiff husband filed action seeking a decree of divorce (vinculo matrimonii) on the ground of malicious desertion on the part of the defendant wife. The defendant countersued for a divorce on constructive malicious desertion on the part of the husband. She also prayed for a sum of Rs. one million as permanent alimony. There are no children from this union. After trial, the District Court granted the divorce in favour of the defendant but did not award permanent alimony citing want of evidence. The defendant appealed to the High Court of Civil Appeal against the denial of permanent alimony. The High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the District Court and reiterated that there was no evidence to award alimony. The defendant is before this Court against the judgment of the High Court.

Learned counsel for the defendant cites section 615(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code as the provision which empowers the District Court to award alimony after granting the divorce.

Section 615 of the Civil Procedure Code as it stands now reads as follows:

615. (1) The court may, if it thinks fit, upon pronouncing a decree of divorce or separation, order for the benefit of either spouse or of the children of the marriage or of both, that the other spouse shall do any one or more of the following:-

(a) make such conveyance or settlement as the court thinks reasonable of such property or any part thereof as he may be entitled to;

(b) pay a gross sum of money;

(c) pay annually or monthly such sums of money as the court thinks reasonable;

(d) secure the payment of such sums of money as may be ordered under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) by the hypothecation of immovable property or by the execution of a bond with or without sureties, or by the purchase of a policy of annuity in an insurance company or other institution approved by court.

(2) The court may at any stage discharge, modify, temporarily suspend and revive or enhance an order made under subsection.

In terms of section 615(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court may, if it thinks fit, upon pronouncing a decree of divorce, order for the benefit of either spouse that the other spouse shall pay a gross sum of money as permanent alimony. The legislature has not expressly stated matrimonial fault as a factor in awarding alimony. In terms of this section, alimony can be awarded not only in favour of the wife, but also in favour the husband. This is a clear departure from the earlier position where only the wife could claim for alimony.

Section 615 as it stood before the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Law, No. 20 of 1977, read as follows:

615. The court may, if it thinks fit, on any decree absolute declaring a marriage to be dissolved, or on any decree of separation obtained by the wife, order that the husband sh