The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the concepts of 'residence' and 'last resided together' under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the need for a place of permanent dwelling for matrimonial purposes.

JUDGMENT -MOHITE R.S., J.:---Heard Shri Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Vishwarupe, Advocate for the respondent.

2.Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3.This is a writ petition challenging an order dated 17-9-2002 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, below Exh. 13 in Petition No. A-144/2002. The main petition has been filed by the respondent husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties were married on 22-7-1999. It is not in dispute that after marriage, the husband and wife came to reside at the residence of the father of the respondent at Nagpur. The respondent was residing there for short time till 27-7-1999, on which date he left for United States of America to pursue his career. The wife stayed at her parents house till 24-8-1999, after that she left for U.S.A. to join her husband. The wife returned on 22-9-2000 for Diwali vacation and husband also returned for vacation on 11-10-2000. Thereafter, for a few days, they were residing at the parental place of the respondent. It is contended that the residence of the parties at the parental place of the respondent-husband was for a short and temporary period and hence they cannot be said to have last resided them.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Jeewanti v. Kishan Chandra)1, reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 3. In para 12 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has had an occassion to interpret and give the meaning of the word "residence" occurring in section 19(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. While interpreting the word "residence" the Apex Court observed that in the ordinary sense it means a residence which is more or less of a permanent character. The Apex Court further observed that 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 to live in hotels, boarding houses or houses of others, his actual and physical habitation is the place where he actually or personally resides.

5.In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment considered the meaning of residence within the meaning of section 19(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In section 19(iii) of the Act, the concept "last resided together" may not have the same connotation as the words "residing at the time of presentation of petition" within the meaning of section 19(ii) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Legislature has not provided for any particular period during which parties should be last residing together at a particular place, for conferring jurisdiction to a Court at that place. Even otherwise the Apex Court while observing as above clearly had several exceptions in mind as can be inferred from para 3 of the Apex Court's judgment. In the present case, the husband brought his wife to his father's place for residence. It is not the petitioner's case that the husband had any separate residence and that he had come to the parental place for the purpose of casual or temporary visit. It can be seen that even after coming from U.S.A., the parties were residing at Nagpur at the residence of the father of the respondent.

6.The petitioner's Advocate has referred to further authorities including one of (Pushpa Datt Mishra v. Archana Mishra)2, reported in A.I.R. 1992 M.P. 260. In that case, the facts were different. The husband and wife were both in service and were posted at different places. They had come to the husband's parental house for a period of about 20 days on a visit. In the present case, the parties did not have any such separate residence.

7.The reliance is lastly placed on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of (T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah)3, reported in A.I.R. 1983 A.P. 356, wherein the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court while interpreting the expression "last resided together" occurring in section 19(iii) of the Act, took the view tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document