ORDER :- This is an application in revision against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, upsetting the order of the Civil Judge regarding return of the plaint and holding that Dehradun Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. The petitioner filed this petition with the allegation that the parties last stayed at Dehradun as husband and wife and, therefore, Dehradun Court had jurisdiction to try the petition. This contention of the petitioner was denied by the respondent who stated that she had not gone to Dehradun to stay with the petitioner but had gone with the intention of totally separating herself from the petitioner and to bring back her certain articles from there.

3. The learned Civil Judge relied on paragraph 9 of the petition and held as a fact that the respondent had not gone to Dehradun to settle with the petitioner but to settle her disputes with him. The learned District Judge did not take into consideration as to what was the intention and as to why the respondent went to Dehradun and came to the conclusion that for at least three days, the respondent stayed with the petitioner and this stay was enough to give jurisdiction to Dehradun Court. It is Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act which gives jurisdiction for a petition for dissolution of marriage. This section reads as below :

"Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnised or the husband and the wife reside or last resided together."

4. The words 'reside' and 'last resided together' have, therefore, to be interpreted for finding out as to whether this stay of three days of the respondent at Dehradun would come under the terms 'reside' or 'last resided together'. Before these two words, we find the words 'husband and wife'. This means that in order to confer jurisdiction to a Court, a petitioner must prove that the parties 'reside' or 'last resided together' as husband and wife. If a wife went to the husband's place only to get rid of the husband or to quarrel with him, it would not be proper to say

that the parties last resided as husband and wife. The word 'resided' therefore, had to be given a special meaning in connection with the relationship of wife and husband. A man residing at a particular place may go with his wife for sight-seeing at a certain place and stay there for a couple of days. That would not amount to saying that at the place of the sight-seeing, they last resided. Similarly, if a husband goes and stays at a hotel with his wife for a couple of days, it would not be correct to say that they last resided at the place where the hotel was situated.

5. A number of decisions have been quoted by the parties' counsel in connection with the interpretation of the words 'reside' and 'last resided together'. These cases are under different statutes and not under the Hindu Marriage Act. In the Indian Divorce Act, there is a provision that the petition for divorce can be filed where the husband and wife reside or last resided together. Therefore, we have to look into these decisions because they would be of help in deciding as to what is meant by the words 'reside' and 'last resided together' occurring in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. In Janak Dulari v. Narain Dass, AIR 1959 Punj 50, the question of interpretation of the words 'reside' and 'last resided together' came up for consideration. In this case, it was held that the word 'reside' implies something more than a mere brief or flying visit.

7. In a Full Bench decision of this Court Arthur Flowers v. Minnie Flowers, (1910) 7 All LJ 193, the question which came up for decision was as to what the word 'dwelling' meant. The following observation in this case can be read with advantage in interpreting the words 'reside' and 'last resided together' :

"The petitioner merely pa