Weerasinghe vs. Renuka – sllr 2016 volume 1 page 057

In the case between the Applicant (wife seeking maintenance) and the Appellant (husband denying maintenance), the issue before the court concerned the interpretation of “living in adultery” under Section 2(1) of the Maintenance Act No. 37 of 1999. It was held that the phrase requires proof of a continuing course of adulterous behavior, not merely isolated acts. The holding reaffirmed the principle that the burden rests on the party alleging “living in adultery” to establish, through cogent evidence, a sustained and ongoing relationship of adultery concurrent with the maintenance application. This decision relied on statutory interpretation and judicial precedent, emphasizing that maintenance cannot be refused based only on evidence of single or past acts of infidelity, but rather requires