A paying guest who resides in a place for more than six years acquires the status of a "resident" for the purpose of filing a matrimonial suit under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

Doubting the correctness of the Order dated 2nd July, 2012, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Calcutta in connection with M.A.T. Suit No. 19 of 2007, the petitioner wife has come before this Court for setting aside the said order on the ground that the learned Court below wrongly considered the jurisdiction matter without any specific and separate application from the opposite party husband and that the impugned order was passed at the time of hearing pendente lite alimony application.

2. Learned Judge, Family Court held in his impugned order that since the petitioner has been staying at 3, Manmatha Bhattacharya Street, Kolkata–700 004 as a paying guest, so she does not have any legal status for filing the matrimonial suit. According to the petitioner, the impugned order should be set aside.

3. At the time of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the impugned order is a very well-reasoned order and it does not warrant any interference.

4. After hearing both sides it seems to me that the main controversy centres around in this lis is if a paying guest be treated as a ‘resident’ in view of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the learned Court below “residing as a paying guest can be said to be temporary period of staying and no legal status accrued by the petitioner for filing the instant case.” On that ground learned Judge, Family Court held that he had no jurisdiction to try the said suit and directed the petitioner to take back the plaint and other related documents for presenting the same before a competent Court of law having jurisdiction.

5. Since the fate of this revisional application hinges mainly or law point so factual aspect need not be restated in detail. Learned Court below had discussed the decision reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 934, (Ivy Sarkar (Majumdar) Vs. Sandip Majumdar). In the said judgment a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held the temporary period of stay cannot satisfy the requirement of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act but the learned Court below failed to appreciate the factual aspect of that case. In that case, the parties decided to settle themselves at the address at Konnagar and they admittedly settled there permanently and resided there as husband and wife all through out and enjoyed the conjugal right therein since the time of their marriage excepting for 28 days at intervals at the address at Salkia, which is under the jurisdiction of District-Howrah. Learned Judge, Family Court failed to consider that staying of 28 days cannot be equated with the staying in a particular place for more than six years at a stretch. Learned Court below also relied on the decision reported in (1991) 3 SCC 451, (Y. Narasimha Rao & Ors. Vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi & Anr). In that celebrated judgment Hon’ble Apex Court held that in order to keep jurisdiction on the ground of residence, something more than a temporary stay is required.

6. It was further held that there must be more or less of a permanent character. That judgment was passed in connection with a judgment of a Foreign Court passed in connection with matrimonial dispute. While discussing the rules of private international law of the different countries, the Hon’ble Apex Court held “private international law of the different countries with regard to jurisdiction and merits based variously on domicile, the nationality, residence – permanent or temporary or ad hoc, forum, proper law etc., and ensuring certainty in the most vital field of national life and conformity with public policy. The rule further takes account of the needs of modern life and makes out due allowance to accommodate them. Above all, it gives protection to women, the most vulnerable section of our society whatever the strata to which they may belong. In particular it frees them from the bondage of the tyrannical and servile rule that wife’s domicile follows that of her husband and that