Dissanayaka Mudiyanselege Renuka Dissanayaka v. R.M.Pradeep Weerasinghe – SC APPEAL 02/2016-2016

In the case between Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Renuka Dissanayaka (applicant) and R.M. Pradeep Weerasinghe (respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether sufficient evidence existed to establish that the applicant was “living in adultery” within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Maintenance Act No. 37 of 1999 at the time her maintenance application was made. The court held that isolated incidents of adultery are not enough to disqualify an applicant from maintenance; rather, it must be shown that the applicant was engaged in a continuous course of adulterous conduct. The principle reaffirmed is that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging adultery, and a mere presumption based on isolated acts is insufficient. The interpretation of “living in adultery” requires cogent proof