| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 87 1956 SLD 87 1956 PLD 412 |
Lahore High Court
First Appeal No. 34 of 1955, decided on 9th January 1956, from the order of Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad, District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 20th April 1955
AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN, J
Fazl-i-Ghani, for Appellant. Norman Edmunds for
Respondent
First Appeal No. 34 of 1955, decided on 9th January 1956, from the order of Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad, District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 20th April 1955
AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN, J
Fazl-i-Ghani, for Appellant. Norman Edmunds for
Respondent
JOAN MARY CARTER
VS
ALBERT WILLIAM CARTER
Law: Succession Act, 1925
Section: 10
Domicile-Animus to return-Mere assertion of a wish not enough-"Domicile" in Divorce Act (1V of 1869) and Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-Domicile of choice-Change of domicile-Domicile different from citizenship-Onus to prove respondent's domicile on petitioner in divorce case-Presumption from long residence-Opting for service in Pakistan on Partition--Domicile presumed changed to Pakistan. Held, intention or animus to return to one's domicile of origin is an important fact in determining domicile but it is a mistake to think that the mere assertion of the contending party that he wishes, even if it is a genuine wish, to return to the country of one's grandfather's origin is, by itself, sufficient to prove that the party retains his domicile of origin. The word "domicile" is defined neither in the Divorce Act nor in the Succession Act, but there are certain rules set out in Part 2 of the Succession Act which cannot be ignored in determining the meaning of the expression under the Divorce Act. According to section 10 of the Succession Act, "a male acquires a new domicile by taking up his fixed habitation in a country which is not that of his domicile of origin". There are thus two elements necessary for the acquisition of a domicile of choice, namely, (1) residence, and (2) an intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. Indeed the fact that a person resides in a country is prima facie evidence that he is domiciled there mere, intention to change one's domicile without actual change of residence is wholly ineffective. Domicile is different from citizenship and can be changed only by the change of intention as well as residence. The onus to prove the respondent's desire to continue residence for an indefinite period is, however, on the petitioner. The respondent's father, grandfather, their wives and their children were all permanent residents in India throughout their lives. None of them ever went to England. His own younger brother lived in India and died in Karachi. His father had a house and business in this sub-continent Held, that the long continued residence of the respondent and his forefathers and relations in this country raised a fair and strong…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492