Christinamary Stella vs Dr. Vijay Siddharaj And Anr. on 7 September, 1978
3. We may refer to the fact that this case came up earlier before us and in the perspective of events we gave an opportunity to the petitioner to the complete the pleading at least at this stage and let in proof about the place of the last residence as between herself and the first respondent. It is in that context that the affidavit filed with C.M.P. No. 9401 of 1978 has been, accepted by us. This shows that the petitioner and the first respondent were last residing together at Pudukkottai. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the first respondent is right when she pointed out the lacuna in the pleadings and even in the testimony of P.W. 1 about the absence of a specific allegation as to the place of last residence as between the two spouses. This, in our view, is purely a question of fact which could be supplemented even at the stage when the matter comes up for confirmation of the order of dissolution by this Court. This is a case in which both the respondents are aware of the petition. They did not participate in it. They never wanted to involve themselves in it and the learned Counsel for the second respondent, who is also appearing as amicus curiae before us says that she has no objection for the grant of an order of dissolution of marriage as prayed for. Taking all these circumstances into consideration and as no counter was filed we, after accepting the evidence of the petitioner through her affidavit filed in C.M.P. No. 9401 of 1978, are of the view that there is sufficient material on record to show that the spouses last resided within the local limits of the original jurisdiction of the District Court of Pudukkottai. The decisions referred to by Mrs. Rajendran as amicus curiae for the first respondent, namely, Premlatika v. Provash and Clarance v. Rachel A.I.R. 1964 Mys. 67 are distinguishable.