IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 105 (3) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

CA Application No:

COC 15/2022 Indula Ukkansa Sumithraachchi, No 154/8, Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05.

Petitioner V.

Jamburagoda Gamaachchige Manjaro Prashansa, No. 80B, Meda Welikada Road, Rajagiriya. Respondent Before : N. Bandula Karunarathna P/CA, J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel: Faizer Musthapha PC with Randika Mudannayake for the Petitioner.

Kausalya Nawaratne PC with Manoda Mohotti for the Respondents.

Written Submissions: 25.03.2024 9by the Petitioner)

On: 25.03.2024 (by the Respondents)

Support on : 14.03.2024 Order On : 04.04.2024 B. Sasi Mahendran, J This Order deals with the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents on the maintainability of this application.

The Petitioner, by petition dated 14.11.2022 invoking this Court’s jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, filed this application against the Respondent alleging that the Respondent was in contempt of court by her alleged failure to adhere to the terms of settlement entered in to the District Court of Colombo on 14.10.2022 in case No. DDV/515/2022.

Before we address the preliminary objections a brief narrative of the events in their chronological order that led to these contempt proceedings is necessary.

According to the petition dated 15.11.2022 Respondent on or about 25.07.2022 initiated divorce proceedings, against the Petitioner, in case No. DDV/515/2022 in the District Court of Colombo, and sought inter alia a Decree of Divorce a vinculo matrimonii against the Petitioner, on the alleged grounds of malicious desertion and/ or adultery, as well as the physical and legal custody of the said minor children from the marriage.

Thereafter, the respondent obtained the following interim order against the Petitioner i. Preventing the Petitioner, from entering their matrimonial home and ii. Removing the said minor children from the Respondent’s physical custody, and from Sri Lanka, without an appropriate order from Court.

While the said interim injunction was enforced petitioner has filed two applications under section 621 of the Civil Procedure Code preventing the Respondent from removing the children from their current school, thereafter admitting them into the Colombo International School.

According to the Petitioner when the matter was taken on 14.10.2022 both parties agreed to the following terms with regard to the interim access.

i. For the Respondent to provide the Petitioner with interim access to the said children on every Friday, from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm at McDonalds Rajagiriy.

ii. For the Petitioner not to remove the said children from the said venue at McDonald’s Rajagiriya during the said period.

Meantime, the Court has fixed for objection and answers on 15.11.2022. On 21.10.202. the Petitioner has gone to see children with his sister and one of his friends. According to paragraph 21 of the Petition, the Petitioner states that, to his shock and dismay, a letter dated 26.10.2022 was sent to the Registered Attorney-At-Law of the Petitioner, via e-mail, by the Registered Attorney-At-Law of the Respondent, which indicated that she has agreed to grant access only to the Petitioner to see his children not his extended family members. Further, she has informed that if the Petitioner bring any other person and record or video any conversation she won’t give access to see children. On 28.10.2022 when he has gone to the McDonald’s to see his children, the children were not there. Thereafter, this application was filed on 14.11.2022 praying for following reliefs, a) Issue Summons and/or Rule on the Respondent in the form annexed hereto (or as varied by Your Lordships' Court) to show cause as to why she should not be dealt with and punished for the offence of Contempt of Court of Appeal, for violating terms recorded in Dis