Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) After marriage the respondent went back to Madras to complete his studies and the appellant during the period continued to live with her parents at Bangalore. After completing his examination, he came down to Bangalore for ceremonial consummation of the marriage. In that connection, he was at Bangalore for a period of at least one month, though his own pleadings would indicate that the said period might have been as long as two months.

(4) When the respondent left Bangalore on or about 20th May 1945 for his parents' place Palani, he went alone. There is some doubt whether he did or did not come to Bangalore to his father-in-law's place thereafter. But there is no and still continues to reside with her father P.W. 2 at Bangalore.

(17) The provision of the Hindu Marriages Act which dealt with the question of jurisdiction is section 19 which reads as follows:

"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 soleminized or the husband and wife resides or last resided together."

(18) Upon admitted facts, the appellant has never lived anywhere with her husband except at her father's house at No. 3, Miller Road, Bangalore. It is also admitted that in connection with the consummation ceremony of the marriage between her and the respondent, the latter had come down to Bangalore and stayed at the same place, viz., her father's house. Whatever may be the exact length of stay, it could not have been less than about a month extending from 20th of May 1945. There is also no doubt about the purpose of his stay here which was to attend the ceremonial consummation of the marriage.

(21) Later in paragraph 12 of the petition setting out the cause of action and jurisdiction, this is what the appellant stated:

"The cause of action for this petition arose on and since 2-6-1955 the date of respondent's reply, at No. 3, Miller Road, High Grounds, Bangalore, where the petitioner and the respondent last resided together and which is within the jurisdiction of this Court".

(22) The allegations in paragraph 4 of the petition were traversed in paragraph 4 of the respondent's counter statement. He admits having come to No. 3 Miller road, Bangalore for the purpose of consummation ceremony, and after referring to certain matters as to what happened at the consummation ceremony to which we shall refer at a later stage, he concludes the paragraph with the following statement:

(32) We find it difficult to accept the position that the visit of the husband to his wife's place at No.3, Miller Road, can rightly be described as casual. The word 'casual' actually means subject to or produced by chance or accidental or fortuitous,--all of which suggest the absence of any previously entertained object or intention. In the present case whether the consummation ceremony did or did not succeed in achieving the object, there can be no doubt that the principal, if not the sole, purpose of the husband's visit to No. 3 Miller Road, was for the purpose of ceremonial consummation of the marriage. The evidence also discloses that not only the respondent but also his parents had come specially for this ceremony and that as in the case of all pious Hindus an auspicious day was also selected. It is impossible to suggest that the consummation of the marriage is not a matter of sufficient importance. Indeed, the establishment of sexual relationship between his and wife to the exclusion of others is one of the principal objects of the relationship brought about by marriage. It has therefore to be held that the visit of the husband was not only not purposeless but actually one motivated by one of the most important objects sought to be achieved by the marriage. The stay for that purpose, whether temporary or not, must be held to be, in the light of the principles stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, a stay accompanied by animus manendi or intention to stay. Even if it may be described as a temporary stay and even if we accept the argument on behalf of the respondent that he had no intention of accepting the suggestion of his father--in-law and making Bangalore his permanent home, he cannot be right when he contends that he had no intention of making No. 3, Miller Road Bangalore, as his temporary abode for a specific purpose.