The interpretation of the expression "last resided together" in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the intention to stay at a place and make it an abode or residence, either permanent or temporary, as a determining factor in establishing jurisdiction for divorce petitions.

1. - This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the decree dated February 12, 1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 5-A/76, by which, he dismissed the petition for divorce filed by the appellant under Section 13 read with Section 10 of the Act.

2. The husband-appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 read with Section 10 of the Act before the District Judge, Jodhpur on July 11, 1974. The wife-respondent filed her reply on October 9, 1977. Thereafter, the petition was amended by the husband and the amended petition was filed on May 15, 1978. The reply to the amended petition was filed on July 5, 1978. The petition was, however, transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur for disposal.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal as stated hereinunder will be those as are borne out from the amended pleadings of the parties.

4. The appellant was married to the respondent in May, 1944 at Ramsar Village, District Ajmer according to the Hindu customs. According to the respondent, the marriage was solemnsed in the Year 1942 or 1944. After solemnisation of the marriage, the appellant lived with the respondent periodically and also cohabited with her occasionally, at Srinagar, District Ajmer from 1944 to 1950, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1957 to 1962, 1963 to 1967. As a result of that, they have nine issues (seven sons and two daughters). The appellant has stated that at intervals, the respondent in 1946, 1948, 1952, 1956 and 1968 made several accusations and as a result of that he had to lead life alone. He has further stated that the respondent treated him with cruelty, by abusing, using filthy language and hurling all sort of defamatory accusations and thus made his life miserable both in private and public. Such instances, according to the appellant, took place at Ajmer in 1946, 1948, 1952 and at Jodhpur in the Year 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1967. It was also stated that the wife (respondent) has deserted him without any reasonable cause. In para 4 of the petition, it was averred that since May, 1969, the respondent though living in the house of the appellant treated him with cruelty more than often in his house at Ajmer and at the places of his relatives S.K. Rabbi, at his parent's residence at, Srinagar and else where denigrating his public and private image, making the life of the appellant a curse on the earth. Para 5 of the petition runs as under:

"5. That since May, 1970, the respondent had threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and has forcibly occupied the house of the petitioner ousted him and whenever he visits she practices cruelty."
About cruelty, various instances have been narrated by the appellant in the petition. The appellant has sought the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It needs to be mentioned here that in para 12 of the petition the appellant has stated that Jodhpur is the place where they last resided together in the Year 1966-67. Para 14 of the petition deals with cause of action, it is stated therein "that the cause of action arose in June, 1967 at Jodhpur where the respondent abandoned and deserted the appellant and on all other days when the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent and the cause of action is continuous and lastly it accrued in May, 1974 when the respondent visited Jodhpur and hurled abuses and blamed the appellant as stated in para 13(ii) above. The petition was contested by the respondent. She controverted the allegations made against her by the appellant. It was stated that after the marriage, they resided permanently as husband and wife at Srinagar, District Ajmer, and that, after joining the service by the appellant they temporarily resided at the places of the posting. She has further stated that at one time, the appellant was posted at Sri Ganganagar where she resided with him on account