( 1 ) THIS matter comes up before us under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of the decree nisi for divorce granted in favour of the petitioner, Paster J. S. Singh and against his wife Smt. Jyotsana Singh (respondent No. 1) by the District Judge, Jabalpur, on 7-3-1981.

( 2 ) BEFORE the District Judge, the petitioner filed a suit under Section 10 of the Di- vorce Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent No. 1, Smt. Jyotsana Singh. The marriage between them was performed on 27-12-1972 in the Methodist Church, Khursipar Baihar, district Balaghat. As a result of this marriage, they have three children. They lived peacefully up to the year 1976. Both of them are teachers. While respondent No. 1 continued serving at Baihar, the petitioner was transferred to Jabalpur and then to Narsimhapur for about a month and again retransferred to Jabalpur. As a result of the transfer, the petitioner resided at Jabalpur, while his wife, respondent No. 1 continued to live at Baihar up to December 1976 when she was transferred to Kaipur. The petitioner's case is that when he resided at Jabalpur, the respondent No. 1 would often visit him during the holidays. They resided together at Jabalpur under the same roof and also cohabited. This went on up to December 1976. The further allegation is that after respondent No. 1 was transferred to Raipur, she did not permit the petitioner any access to her. The petitioner noticed that at Raipur she came in contact with respondent No. 2, H. K. Sharma who was often found at the residence of respondent No. 1 and the two respondents started living together practically as husband and wife. It is also alleged that she conceived from respondent No. 2 and according to the petitioner she even has married him. The allegation, therefore, is that the respondent No. 1 had started living in adultery entitling the petitioner to a decree for divorce. After the filing of the suit, certain allegations were added in paragraph 4 of the original plaint. By the amendment, the plea introduced is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 last resided together at Jabalpur and, therefore, the District Judge, Jabalpur, has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of S 3 (3) of the Act. Both the respondents remained absent and filed no written statement although they were duly served. The District Judge, therefore, proceeded in their absence, recorded the statement of the petitioner and relying upon it, has passed a decree nisi for divorce which is now sought to be confirmed by this Court.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Jabalpur was not questioned before that Court, the question of jurisdiction is of paramount importance and since we had our own doubts in that behalf, we required the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy us on that count. It may be mentioned that the respondents also did not appear before us. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the deposition of the petitioner himself, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 visited him at his place at Jabalpur and lived with him up to December 1977 and, therefore, they 'last resided together' within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Jabalpur and hence the District Judge, Jabalpur had jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 3 (3) of the Act. 'district Court' means, in the case of any petition under the Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction under the Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together. The question, therefore, is as to the meaning of the words 'reside' or 'last resided together' as are used in this section. The word 'residence' signifies a man's abode or continuance in a place and where there is nothing to show that it is used in a more extensive sense, it denotes the place where an individual eats, drinks and sleeps or where his family or his servants eat, drink andsleep. The word 'residence' has a varie