The Court emphasized the importance of satisfying itself about the absence of collusion and undue delay, and found that the petitioner's conduct amounted to connivance, disqualifying him from seeking dissolution of the marriage.

N. SREENIVASA RAU, C. J.

( 1 ) I agree with the conclusions arrayed at by my learned brother Mir Iqbal Husain, J. , on all the questions arising in this case and with the proposed order dismissing the petition. As some of the points involved are of great importance, I am adding the following observations:

( 2 ) THE question of jurisdiction of the Court in which the petition was filed is one of some difficulty. It may also be mentioned that the petition itself does not contain any averment as to the place of residence of either party with reference to the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner (husband) is, however, described as residing at Vaniambadi in North Arcot District, madras State, and Respondent-I (wife) is stated to be a school mistress in Robertsonpet, Kolar gold Fields, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Bangalore, to which the petition was present.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act a petition for dissolution of marriage has to be presented to the District Court or the High Court. Section 3 (1) of the Act, while defining 'high court', says:

"in the case of any petition under this Act, 'high Court' is the one of the aforesaid Courts within the local limits of whose ordinary appellate jurisdiction, or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together. "

Sub-section (3) says:

" 'district Court' means in the case of any petition under this Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction, or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together. "

It will thus be seen that the test for determining the jurisdiction of the High Court or the District court is the territorial jurisdiction with reference to where the husband and wife reside or last resided together.

( 4 ) THERE appears to be some difference of opinion among the High Courts as to whether the word 'together' qualifies only the words 'last resided' or it also qualifies the word 'reside'. While some high Courts have held that even in the case of invoking the Court's jurisdiction on the ground that the husband and the wife are residing within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the presentation of the petition it is necessary that they should be residing 'together', other High' courts have held that it is enough that both of them are residing within the jurisdiction of the court, though it may be that they are residing separately. It is, however, unnecessary to express any view on this point, since it is beyond question in this case that the petitioner (husband) was not residing within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Bangalore, at the time the petition was filed. So the question for consideration is whether the husband and wife last resided together within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. The material placed before the District Court seems to show that the marriage took place in the Muskam Church of South India at Kolar Gold fields on 22-6-1940, that the Petitioner came to that place for the marriage, that on the night of the marriage his wife informed him that she had had, prior to the marriage, sexual connections with Respondent 2 and that the marriage had been, arranged by her brother by compulsion. On coming to know of this the Petitioner left her in her parent's house and returned to Vaniambadi. Thereafter they never resided together. The word 'reside' connotes some degree of continuity of stay in a place and the words 'residing together' would consequently mean that the persons residing together should have continuously stayed together in the same dwelling for some time. There is no material in this case to show that the two parties were together at any time except during the marriage ceremony at the Church and at the dwelling where the marriage was intended to be consummated on the night of the marriage. Being together in such circumstances may not be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document