Pritma Sharma vs Mohinder S. Bhardwaj on 24 January, 1984
8. From the facts noticed above, the question of law which arises for consideration is whether it can be said that the visit of the husband on 5th September, 1982 to the wife's residence at Hissar, would give jurisdiction to the Matrimonial Court at Hissar, under Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Clause (iii) of Section 19 of the Act, gives the jurisdiction to the Court where the parties to the marriage last resided together. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the residence of the husband with his wife at Hissar on 5th September, 1982 would come within the ambit of the words 'last resided together'. The Court below placed reliance on Dr. Ashok Ranjan Saxena v. Smt. Vishwa Bharti, AIR 1978 All 18. The facts of that case were that the parties were married at Allahabad in June, 1974 and lived there as husband and wife till December, 1974. In early part of Dec., 1974 the wife left the matrimonial home at Allahabad for her father's place at Bareilly and never returned to. Allahabad. Her husband visited Bareilly thrice in an attempt to bring her back and stayed as an unwanted guest at his father-in-law's house and the attempts proved futile and her turned to Allahabad disappointed. On those facts the three visits to Bareilly and staying with his father-in-law were not considered to give jurisdiction to Bareilly Court, as. according to the learned Judge, it could not be held that the parties last resided together at Bareilly. The facts o the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. There, the husband had stayed with his father-in-law and the number of the visits were casual or flying i. e. for re-conciliation and to bring her. back. No reconciliation took place. On the evidence, it was held that there was no communication between the parties even during the brief visits of the husband to Bareilly and the husband had to rely on communications through postal system. In the present case, when both the parties are working at two different places having their separate residential houses, both places would be fit for the residence of the spouses. If the wife would go to Delhi, to visit her husband; she can be deemed to be residing wit him there and if she husband would go to the wife's place at Hissar, he would be deemed to be residing with his wife at Hissar. Such visits of the wife or of the husband cannot be termed as casual or flying. On the other hand, such visits may be termed as temporary visits by both the spouses and such temporary visits have been held to come within the meaning of the word `resides' and the word 'resided'. See in this behalf. Mst.