Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

kpd 9 / 31 ARBAP-49-2017-PD.doc
9. The Applicant has relied upon the definition of "habitually resident" as defined in the Law Lexicon and sought to contend that in order to decide whether a person is a habitual resident in a particular country, the Court should consider whether such person intends to reside in that country so as to obtain domicile of that country. It is then submitted that the Applicant has his permanent place of residence in India and he has no intention of residing in any other country except India. It is also submitted that the Applicant has to leave his country for his work and travels to various countries for work.

22. As regards the submission of the Respondents that the said judgment being under Section 11 of the Act has no precedential value and not binding on this Court, in view of my findings as stated above it is not necessary to consider this submission. In any event, the said judgment would have persuasive value and hence I have dealt with the same.

23. The Applicant has then relied upon the meaning of domicile and judgments in that regard in support of its submission. I am of the view that this contention is also without any basis and those judgments would be of no assistance to the Applicant. It is very clear that language of sub-clause (i) of Section 2(1)(f ) of the Act does not use the expression 'domicile'. It is an expression that the legislature would have been aware of but has consciously chosen to use the expression 'habitually resident'. Further, even the Law Lexicon definition relied upon by the Applicant states that the meaning of "habitually resident" is "a physical presence in a country which must endure for some time; it is equivalent to the residence required to establish domicile without the necessary animus. Habitually Resident also means Place or Country in which a person has his home." Even from this definition it is clear that the animus necessary for domicile is not necessary for satisfying the meaning of 'habitually resident'. It is therefore a lower standard than that of domicile. Therefore, the judgments that deals entirely with the meaning of 'domicile' would not be of any help to the Applicant. Further, the submission of the Applicant that it is the intention to reside in a particular kpd 18 / 31 ARBAP-49-2017-PD.doc place that makes him a 'habitual resident' would be contrary to the Law Lexicon definition relied upon even by the Applicant, which says that animus is not necessary. For the same reason the alleged intention of the Applicant not to reside in any country other than India, as stated in the Written Submissions, would not be material to the issue of the Applicant being a 'habitual resident' of Dubai.

30. In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India [(2006) 7 SCC 1] the expression "ordinary residence" as used in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 fell for interpretation. This Court observed: (SCC p. 96, paras 243-46) "243. Lexicon refers to Cicutti v. Suffolk County Council [(1981) 1 WLR 558 : (1980) 3 All ER 689 (DC)] to denote that the word 'ordinarily' is primarily directed not to duration but to purpose. In this sense the question is not so much where the person is to be found 'ordinarily', in the sense of usually or habitually and with some degree of continuity, but whether the quality of residence is 'ordinary' and general, rather than merely for some special or limited purpose.

244. The words 'ordinarily' and 'resident' have been used together in other statutory provisions as well and as per Law Lexicon they have been construed as not to require that the person should be one who is always resident or carries on business in the particular place.

245. The expression coined by joining the two words has to be interpreted with reference to the point of time requisite for the purposes of the provision, in the case of Section 20 of the RP Act, 1950 it being the date on which a person seeks to be registered as an elector in a particular constituency.