[ FULL BENCH.]

1921. Present : Bertram C.J. and Ennis and De Sampayo J.J.

PONNAMMAH v. SEENITAMBY

356-P. C. Batticaloa. 8,497.

Maintenance Ordinance, s. 7-Corroboration of the evidence of the mother -Statements made by mother to third persons some months after conception-Evidence Ordinance. s. 157-Complaints made before public authority competent to investigate.

The requirement of section 7 of the Maintenance Ordinance of 1889 that, in order to justify an order for maintenance, the evidence of the mother should be corroborated in some material particular by other evidence is satisfied by any kind of corroboration which is recognized by law at the time that her evidence is given ; and consequently section 157 of the Evidence Ordinance of 1895 applies to section 7 of the Maintenance Ordinance of 1889,

Statements made by the mother to third persons some months after conception, and some months after intimacy had ceased, was held not to be corroboration, as the statements were not made at or about the time of the intimacy.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

This case was referred to a Full Court by Shaw J. by the following order :-

April 20, 1921. SHAW J.-

This case raises a very important point under the Maintenance Ordinance, viz., whether previous statements made by the mother of the illegitimate child to third persons as to the paternity of the child are sufficient corroboration for the purpose of Satisfying the requirements of the last part of section 7 of the Maintenance Ordinance. In the case of Angohamy v. Kirinelis Appu,1[(1911) 15 N. L. R. 232.] Wood Renton J. expressed the opinion that such proved statements; would be sufficient corroboration. The opinion expressed by the Judge in that case is, however, a mere obiter dictum, because there-was independent corroboration of another kind sufficient to comply with the requirements of section 7 of the Ordinance. That case has been followed in a case reported at 3 Weekly Reporter 87. It was also in somewhat hesitating manner accepted by myself in a case reported in 1 Ceylon Weekly Re-ports 280. [ have, however. serious doubts as to whether the opinion expressed is correct

The question as to what is sufficient corroborative evidence in cases of this sort has been recently dealt with at considerable length in the Court of Appeal in England in the case of Thomas v. Jones,1[36 Times Law Reports 872.] and the opinion expressed in the case of Angohamy v. Kirinelis Appu2[(1911) 15 N.L.R. 232.] seems to me to conflict with the requirements which the Court of Appeal have considered necessary in a similar matter in England. It is true that there is no provision in England similar to the provision in section 157 of the Evidence Ordinance. But it appears to me at least doubtful whether that section can have been intended to vary the safeguards provided by a previous Ordinance. At any rate, it is a matter of considerable importance, and it is desirable to have a definite opinion expressed on it. I. therefore, refer it to a more fully constituted tribunal.

H. V. Perera, for defendant, appellant.-The evidence of the mother must be corroborated by " other evidence," section 7, It is submitted that a previous statement made by the mother to the effect that the defendant is the father of the child is not such ''other evidence." What the Ordinance requires is some ground of belief other than the statement of the mother. Proof of the fact that the same statement was made by the mother on some previous occasion does not furnish the Court with an additional ground of belief. No doubt a previous statement made by the mother may be an element in a set of circumstances pointing to the defendant as the father of the child, and such a set of circumstances would be " other evidence" of the allegation made by the mother (1 C. W. R. 208). Thus, where a statement as to the paternity of the child is made by the mother i