Vision for mental health becomes a mission

National Mental Health Week was born in a moment of inspiration. The newly established Federation of NGOs for Mental Health and Well-being (FNMHW), took the lead role in organising the event. Strong backing was received from Ellen Mercer, Director, International Office of the American Psychiatrists Association, and a healthy collaboration was established between the Government and NGOs. A Steering Committee was set up with representatives from both sectors. 

The curtain-raiser for the event was a message from President Kumaratunga. As she said, "the well-being of a nation depends on the well-being of individuals composing the nation. Therefore my government respects the concept of Total Health interpreted by the World Health Organisation, that the health of individuals is not only the absence of illness but also the total physical, mental and spiritual well-being. The declaration of a National Health Week therefore, is a step in the right direction because it would serve as a focal point for the planning of people-oriented mental health initiatives. This exercise in the long run may lead to a change in the attitudes and social stigma attached to mental ill-health." 

Creating an awareness

In 1998 the organization of NMHW took a downward trend, mainly due to a lack of funds in the NGO sector, and a downgrading of priorities in the public sector. Mention should be made however, of the persistent efforts of Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Social Services Mrs. V. Jegarajasingham, who organized a number of activities. "Protect the Rights of the Mentally Ill" was the theme for 1999. Activities included meetings with Provincial Secretaries and Provincial Directors of Social Services. Another useful input was the organisation of a Participatory Seminar on the "Promotion of Mental Health and Well-being: Role of the Private Sector". 

Private Sector 

At the participatory seminar mentioned it was resolved that "The corporate responsibility and role of the private sector in providing adequate mental health care should have top priority. A first step was the identification and strategic planning and implementation of suitable programmes and projects responsive to the high profile of the private sector in national development." In conclusion it was resolved that "a partnership be established through a joint venture in networking, thereby enabling the private sector to collaborate with the State and NGO sectors in promoting mental health and well-being, with special reference to productivity and concomitant support of the labour force." 

Mental Health Week 2000

Our present Mental Health Act is over a hundred years outdated. On a more cheerful note Dr. B. Waidyasekera, Chairman, Sub-committee for reviewing the Mental Health Act says that, "During the intervening century, the concepts, attitudes and methods of treatment with respect to mental disorders have undergone revolutionary changes all over the world. These salutary changes have reached the shores of Sri Lanka and progress in the treatment of the mental patients has received a fresh impetus with the publication of the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the re-organisation of the Mental Health Services in Ceylon (1966). 

Centre for Mental Health 

Spade work in setting up the Project has been done by the RFL by setting up model halfway house according to the therapeutic community principles of the Richmond Fellowship Intention, which has successfully introduced this approach in 28 other countries. Necessary complimentary facilities, such a Sheltered Workshop and Day Care Centre will be available to promote the aims of the Project. 

The project hopes to: 

- identify the potential of local resources - both human and material; 
- expand and consolidate the existing sheltered workshop and establish a sales outlet; 
- organise training workshops for, a) mental health community workers, b) mental health activists; 
- organise an annual South Asian Mental Health Conference of RFL affiliates; 
- equip and develop a Mental Health Clearing House for the collection, processing and distribution of information on mental health care. 

Hopefully before National Mental Health Week 2000 is filed away in the sub-conscious for future reference, an imprint will be left on caring minds. 

Law and Citizen Dr. C. Ananda Grero 

You'd better pay up Mister!

Section 2 of the Maintenance Ordinance states: If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child the Magistrate may upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such a person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or child at such monthly rate the Magistrate thinks fit. It further states such maintenance may be ordered taking into consideration the income of the defendant (i.e., husband) and the means and circumstances of the applicant (i.e., the wife) or such child. 

Section 5 of the said Ordinance, states that on proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under Section 2 (the aforesaid Section) is living in adultery or, that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order (i.e., the order of maintenance). 

It could thus be seen, that the law does not permit a wife living in adultery to get the benefit of maintenance. And if it is proved that she is leading an adulterous life, then the Magistrate is empowered to cancel the maintenance order made by him earlier. 

Citizen Don Albert had some misunderstanding with his wife Matilda and stopped maintaining her. She then made an application to the Magistrate's Court of the area and this application was inquired into by the Magistrate who ordered Don Albert to pay a sum of Rs. 1000 per month to his wife as maintenance. This order was made on April 10, 1994. He paid this amount regularly. On September 30, 1994 he made an application to the same Court under Section 5 of the Maintenance Ordinance asking that the order for maintenance be cancelled, on the grounds that the applicant in the maintenance case, his wife, Matilda had on June 16, 1994 contracted a bigamous marriage with one Sepala. However Sepala lived with her only for two months and thereafter left her. 

The Magistrate after giving notice to Matilda about the application made under Section 5 of the Maintenance Ordinance, held an inquiry and delivered his order dismissing the application of citizen Don Albert. He held in the order that there must be proof that his wife had been living in adultery at the time the application for cancellation was made (i.e., on September 30, 1994). As the husband (Don Albert) failed to establish that fact, the Magistrate dismissed his application to cancel the order of maintenance. Don Albert appealed against this order to the Court of Appeal. 

A similar matter came up before two Judges of the Court of Appeal, Justice G.P.S. de Silva (later Chief Justice) and Justice Bandaranayake for argument. This case is reported in (1985) 2 Sri Lanka Law Reports at page 8 and names of the parties are Balasingham Vs Kalaivanay. 

It was argued by the counsel for the appellant (like Don Albert) that proof of living in adultery at the time of application for cancellation of the order of maintenance under Section 5 (of the Maintenance Ordinance) was not necessary as long as there was evidence of living in adultery at any point of time after an order for maintenance in favour of the applicant (like Matilda) had been made. 

Justice de Silva referred to the evidence led in the case. It was stated that the applicant (like Matilda) had contracted a bigamous marriage on May 29th 1975 (in this case) and had lived with a man called Samandarajah for a period of about one month from May 29th 1975. But there was no evidence to show that she had lived in adultery at the time the application was made to cancel the maintenance order. Also Justice de Silva considered a number of cases of the Supreme Court decided earlier, the question of "living in adultery". In the case of Rammalhamy Vs Appuhamy (1916) 3 C.W.R. 326, it was decided that an order under Section 5 of the Maintenance Ordinance can be cancelled if it is shown that the wife is living in adultery. The fact that at sometime subsequent to the order she was living in adultery does not entitle the husband to a cancellation of the order if she has ceased to do so and is living an honourable life at the time of the application. 

He referred to the said Section and said, that no decision of our Courts which takes the view contended by counsel for defendant appellant (like Don Albert) was cited before them (i.e., living in adultery at any point of time). He further said that on consideration of the plain meaning of the words in the Section and the trend of the authorities, the Court was of the opinion that though the Section (i.e., Section 5 of the Maintenance Ordinance) speaks of the wife "living in adultery", the relevant point of time is the time of the application under Section 5 of the Maintenance Ordinance. There is no evidence of continuous adulterous conduct on the part of the applicant (like Matilda) at the time of the application. Thus the order of the Magistrate is affirmed and the appeal (like the appeal of Don Albert) is dismissed. Justice Bandaranayake agreed with the judgment of Justice G.P.S. de Silva. 

Thus, Don Albert cannot succeed in his appeal as there was no evidence before Court to show, that at the time he made the application to cancel the order for maintenance, she (Matilda) was living in adultery. 

(Names are fictitious)

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents