1947 Present; Dias J

SELLIAH, Appellant, and SINNAMMAH , Respondent

375-M, C. Jaffna, 1,997.

Maintenance-Evidence Ordinance, s. 112-Meaning of "access to the mother''- Legitimacy of child born during subsistence of marriage-Civil nature of maintenance proceedings-Fact of wife's living in adultery-Burden of proof is on husband-Maintenance Ordinance (Cap, 76), ss. 2, 3, 4, 14,

Where a wife sued the husband for maintenance for herself and a child and the Court found as a fact that, although the applicant and the defendant were living apart at the time when the child could have been begotten, there were both the possibility of and opportunities for intercourse-

Held, that the word "access" in section 112 of the Evidence Ordinance meant no more than opportunity of intercourse and that, the defendant was, therefore, liable to maintain the child. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in Karapaya Servai v. Mayandi (A. I. R. 1934 P. C. 49) the judgment of the Full Bench in Jane Nona v. Leo (1923) 25 N. L. R. 241 could no longer be regarded as binding authority.

Held, further, (i) that proceedings under the Maintenance Ordinance are not