Find a Lawyer

Divorce Suit No. 5 of 1951 of the Court of the District Judge, Dacca, decree confirmed on 16th May 1952.

, S. 2‑Domicile of origin or domicile of choice‑Whether domicile of origin can be abandoned or domicile of choice acquired‑Conditions for acquiring new domicile‑Mere residence whether enough.

Any person who is sui juris may at any time abandon the domicile of origin and adopt a domicile of choice, upon fulfilling two conditions that is by : Voluntarily fixing his and his family's habitation in the new place, and (ii) With the present intention of making it his permanent home.

There must therefore be both the factum of residence and the animus manendi and there must be no animus revertendi to the former domicile. Residence or animus manendi by itself will not be enough to confer a new domicile. A person continues to retain his domicile of origin until a domicile of choice is acquired and even then the domicile of origin merely remains in abeyance.

Lord v. Colvin (1559) 28 L J C H 361, Wright v. Wright I L R 58 Cal. 259 and Rooke v. Rooke A I R 1934 Bom. 230 ref.

Pankoi Coomar Ghose, for Petitioner.

No one for Respondent.

---This matter comes before us under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 which requires that every decree for dissolution of a marriage made by a District judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. The petitioner in this case is one Ralph William Bagley who was married to the respondent Elizabeth Bagley on the 5th of March 1946, in the office of the Senior Marriage Registrar for Calcutta. The marriage was consummated but no children were born of the marriage. In December 1950, and subsequently, more particularly, in March, April, and May 1951, the petitioner Ralph William Bagley claims that his wife, the respondent, committed adultery with an un known European whose identity he was unable to ascertain in spite of his best efforts and endeavours. As soon as the petitioner came to know of the adultery, he stated that he confronted the respondent with the matter and after pre -verification, ultimately she admitted that she had committed adultery on several occasions with a person whose identity she declined to disclose, both in the house where the petitioner and the respondent were living together and also elsewhere. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition before the District Judge of Dacca asking for the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground that she had committed adultery with some person unknown. Notice was duly served upon the respondent, and although she received the notice personally, she did not enter any ap pearance to contest the matter. Before the learned District judge the petitioner examined himself and one Abdul who had been in his employ for a period of eight months. This witness deposed that when the petitioner was out on tour, another man whose name he did not know, used to visit the respondent and used to sleep with her in the bedroom after putting out the light.

The learned District judge accepted this evidence as sufficient and on the 24th of September 1951, finding that adultery had been established, passed a decree dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the ground of adultery and submitted the records to this Court for confirmation of his decree.

Before us Mr. Pankoj Coomar Ghose has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No appearance has been entered on behalf of the respondent although notice, has been duly served upon her. Mr. Pankoj Coomar Ghose has referred once more to the evidence which was recorded by the learned District judge and has asked for the confirmation of the decree.

The charge that the respondent had committed adultery with some person unknown, was not challenged before the District judge and was accepted as being true. Really the only, point which we should consider, is the question of domicile. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion on the evidence that the petitioner was of Pakistani domicile by choice. It has been observed by Manchanda in his book on 'The Law and Practice of Divorce", while dealing on the question of domicile of choice

Any person who is sui furis may at any time abandon the domicile of origin and adopt a domicile of choice, upon fulfilling the two conditions laid down by Kindersle Vice Cllancellor in Lord v. Colvin ((1559) 28 L J CH 361.) that is by:

(i) Voluntarily fixing his and his family s habitation in the new place, and

(ii) With the present intention of making it his permanent home.

There must therefore be both the factum of residence and the animus manendi and there must a no animus revertendi to the former domicile Residences or animus manendi by itself will not be enough to confer a new domicile. A person continues to retain his domicile of origin until a domicile of choice is acquired and even then the domicile of origin merely remains in abeyance, Vide Wright v. Wright (I L R 58 Cal. 259.) and Rooke v, Roo4e (A I R 1934 Born. 239).

In the present case the petitioner has stated that he is a British‑born subject originally having his domicile in England. He Came in Calcutta in 1933 as an Engineer and served as such in the different districts of Bengal until India was divided on the 15th of August 1947. He then opted for Pakistan with the definite intention of residing here permanently and adopted and acquired the Pakistan domicile by choice. He is residing here permanently and definitely and has no inten tion of returning to his former domicile which he had positively abandoned. He has no home in any other place and has been continuously residing in Daca since August 1947 without any break and is seeking for a land to build his house. This statement which is to be found in his petition is also borne out by the sworn evidence of the petitioner himself. In these circumstances, the two conditions laid down with regard to establishing domicile of choice have been fulfilled. Not only is there the present animus manendi m that the petitioner claims that he intends to reside in Pakistan but also there is no animus revertendi to the former domicile in that the petitioner claims that he has every intention of building his house and residing permanently in Pakistan. In these circumstances, having acquired a Pakistan domicile by choice, there can be no challenge on the question of tile jurisdiction of the Court to deal with his petition. In these circumstances, we confirm the decree passed by the District Judge of Dacca on the 24th of September 1951, declaring that the marriage of the petitioner Ralph William Bagley with the opposite party Elizabeth Bagley be declared dissolved on the ground of adultery.

--‑I agree

--I agree.

A. H. Decree confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.