9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, to entertain the Original Petition. 2. The interpretation of "reside" and "last resided together" under Section 3(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum: The primary issue was whether the District Court, Trivandrum, had jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition filed by the respondent under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The respondent claimed that both parties last resided together in Trivandrum, while the revision petitioner contended that they last resided together in Bangalore. The respondent stated that she lived with the revision petitioner at his parents' house in Trivandrum after their marriage and that Trivandrum was the permanent residence of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner, however, denied having any permanent residence and provided a detailed account of his transient stays in various cities due to his occupation. The District Court, Trivandrum, had to determine whether the couple's stay in Trivandrum constituted "residence" under the Act. The Court concluded that the stay in Trivandrum was indeed their last residence together, thus granting jurisdiction to the District Court, Trivandrum. 2. Interpretation of "Reside" and "Last Resided Together" under Section 3(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869: The term "District Court" under Section 3(3) of the Act means the court of the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the husband and wife reside or last resided together. The Court needed to interpret whether the couple's stay in Trivandrum met this criterion. The respondent provided evidence, including letters and oral testimonies, to support her claim that Trivandrum was their last place of residence. The revision petitioner did not provide oral evidence but submitted documentary evidence indicating his transient lifestyle. The Court emphasized that "residence" implies more than a temporary stay or casual visit. It involves an intention to stay for an indefinite period, making the place an abode. The Court found that the revision petitioner's parents' house in Trivandrum, where the respondent stayed for her education, constituted their last residence together. The stay in Bangalore was deemed a casual or flying visit, not meeting the criteria for "residence." The Court referred to various legal precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts, which established that "residence" requires animus manendi (an intention to stay). The Court concluded that the stay in Trivandrum was intended as a residence, while the stay in Bangalore lacked such intention. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the decision of the District Court, Trivandrum, affirming that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. The Court found that the couple last resided together in Trivandrum, and the stay in Bangalore was merely a casual visit. The revision petition was dismissed, and the interpretation of "reside" and "last resided together" was clarified to require an intention to make a place an abode, either permanently or temporarily.
|
