JEEWANTI PANDEY versus KISHAN CHANDRA PANDEY

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1003 · Decided: 20-10-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
ioo:l 
A 
JEEWANTt PANDEY 
v. 
KISHAN CHANDRA PANDEY 
October 20, 1981 
(A. P. SEN AND A. V ARADARAJAN, JJ.J 
Family Law-Jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain a petition for 
nullity of 111arriage under se::tlon 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, 
Words and Phrases-:\feaning of the word "residence"-Section 19(ii) of 
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 clarified. 
The appellant is the wife, and the respondent is the husband. The parties 
originally belonged to village Bag:ya;i, Di'itrict Pithoragarh in the State of Uttar 
Pradesh. They fell in love and the appellant became cncients, as the respondent 
had access to her during the period of courtship. As her father was opposed to 
her marriage, the appellant was brought in a advance stage of pregnancy to 
Delhi and through the intervention of her uncle Basant Kumar their marriage 
was solemnised according toArya Samaj rites at New Delhi. A few days after 
the marriage, the respondent left the residence or Basant Kumar on the pretext 
of fetching his belongings from the residence of his uncle who also lives at Delhi 
and never returned. He served a notice on the appellant alleging that the 
marriage was a nullity as she got pregnant through son1eone else and that fraud 
was practised on him by her uncle and that he bad coerced to marry against his 
will. The appellant after denying the allegations filed a petition for restitution 
of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act in the Court of Subordinate Judge, 
Class-I, Delhi which was decreed in her favour and the said decree had become 
final. Later on, the respondent filed a petition under section 12 of the Act in the 
Court of the District Judge, Almora, alleging that the parties were residents of 
village Bagyan while in fact at all material times both resided at Delhi. A few 
days after, the appellant delivered a dead child at Delhi. Later on, by her written 
statement she challenged the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Almora to try 
the suit. The district Judge answered the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction 
against the appellant. The High Court, in appeal, by its judgment affirmed the 
order. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD; 1:1. In the context of clause (ii) of the sectio~ 19 of the Hindu 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
M 
· 
A t 1955 the word "resides" must mean actual residence and not a 
arnagec,' 
Ir·· 
H 
legal or constructive residence; it certainly does n~t con~ote the P. ace o ong1n. 
In order to give jurisdiction on the ground of ures1dence' , something more than 
a mere temporary stay is required. It must be more or less of a ~permanent 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
i004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982] 1 s.c.i\. 
character, and of such a nature that the court in which the respondent is sued, 
is his natural forun1. 
In the instant case, at the commencement of the proceed-
ings both the parties admittedly resided at Delhi and, therefore, the District 
Judge, Almora did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. [1008 F-H, l009A] 
1 :2 The word "iesidence" is a flexible one and has many shades of meaning 
but it must take its colour and content from the context in which it appears and 
cannot be read in isolation. It is capable of being understood in its ordinary sense 
of having one's own dwelling permanently, as well 'as in -Jts extended sense. In 
its ordinary sense "residence" is more or less of a permanent character. The 
expression "resides" means to make an abode for a considerable time; to dwell 
permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is the 
place where a person has a fixed home or abode. Where. there is such fixed home • 
or such abode at one place the person cannot be said to reside at any other place 
where he had gone on a casual or temporary visit, for example, for health or 
business or for a change. If a person lives with his wife and children in an 
established home, his legal and actual place of residence is the same. If a person 
has no established home and is compelled ta live in hotels, boarding houses or 
houses of others, his actual and ph)'sical habitation is the place where he actually 
or personally resides. [1008 B-C, E·F] 
[The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the petition for nullity of 
marriage filed by the respondent under s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955i be 
returned for presentation to the proper courti i.e., the court of the District 
Judge, Delhi.] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.