JUDGMENT

Buckland, J. - This matter has corns before this Court for confirmation, u/s 17, Divorce Act of 1869, of the decree for the dissolution of the marriage of the parties made by the District Judge at Darjeeling on 19th September 1929.

2. There would be no difficulty in the way of confirming the decree were it not for want of proper attention to the question of the domicile of the petitioner.

3. In his evidence, the petitioner has stated that his present domicile is in India. He has also stated that he was married at Secundorabad in 1920 and has lived with his wife at various places in India until shortly before he filed his petition, statements which may or may not have a bearing upon the question of his domicile. The District Judge has observed that he is satisfied of the fact that all the parties are at present domiciled in India. Nothing further material to the question of domicile is to be found on the record.

4. It is of the highest importance that in cases under the Divorce Act the question of domicile should be treated with care, for, unless the parties to the marriage are domiciled in India at the time when the petition is presented, there is no jurisdiction in a District