VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- In this civil revision petition on behalf of the petitioner Mr. M. T. Paikaday learned counsel challenges the order of the learned District Judge of Trivandrum, dated 15th January 1966 overruling the objections raised by the petitioner to entertain O. P. No. 1 (Indian Divorce Act) of 1965, filed by the respondent herein before that Court.

2. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent took place on 2-4-1964. The respondent filed the Original Petition in question before the District Court, Trivandrum, under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Central Act 4 of 1869), to as the Act, for a declaration that the marriage that took place between her and the revision petitioner on 2-4-1964 is null and void. It is not necessary for us, at this stage, to refer to the various averments made in the Original Petition or in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, regarding the grounds, on the basis of which the Original Petition had been filed; because the short controversy that arises for consideration, at the hands of this Court at this stage, is regarding the correctness or otherwise of the order of the learned District Judge, Trivandrum, holding that the said Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition.

3. It is necessary to briefly advert to the averments contained in the Original Petition, as well as in the written statement filed therein, in so far as they are necessary for the present purpose. The respondent has stated in the said Original Petition that she is a resident of Ernakulam and that her parents are residing in Thrikkakara. The revision petitioner, who was employed as an Engineer in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, was working at the material time, in Bombay and he has also his parents' house in Trivandrum. The respondent further states that her marriage took place at St. Thomas Jacobite Syrian Church, Kakkanad, within the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam District Court, on 2-4-1964. It is further stated that from the date of the marriage, till about the end of April 1964, the respondent lived with the revision petitioner at the residence of the revision petitioner's parents, in Trivandrum, excepting for 3 days when they lived together at the residence of the respondent's parents at Thrikkakara. There is a further statement in paragraph 4 of the Original Petition to the effect, that the permanent place of residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum. The respondent further states in paragraph 7 of the Original Petition-the material part of which relates to present controversy-that at the time of the marriage and till about the end of 1964, the revision petitioner was employed in Bombay, and was staying there. In paragraph 9 of the Original Petition, the respondent categorically states that the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together at Trivandrum, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. Ultimately the respondent prays for the reliefs referred to in the Original Petition, referred to above.

4. Therefore, it will be seen that according to the respondent, the permanent place of residence of the 'revision petitioner is at Trivandrum; and her further averment is that both of them last resided together at Trivandrum, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum.

5. The revision petitioner has filed a fairly detailed written statement, controverting the various allegations made by the respondent in the Original Petition, both regarding the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, to entertain the Original Petition, as well as on merits. The revision petitioner has stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement that the allegation of the respondent in the Original Petition that the permanent place of residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum is denied. The revision petitioner also states that he had not any permanent place of residence at the time of the marriage, n