| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 80 1958 SLD 80 1958 PLD 923 |
Lahore High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1956, decided on 5th July 1958
SHAHIR AHMAD AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
Norman Edmunds and R. Sidhwa for Appellant. Fazal-i-Ghani for
Respondent.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1956, decided on 5th July 1958
SHAHIR AHMAD AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
Norman Edmunds and R. Sidhwa for Appellant. Fazal-i-Ghani for
Respondent.
A. W. CARTER
VS
MRS: J.M. CARTER
Law:
Section:
(a) Divorce Act (IV of 1869), S. 10-Domicile Actual residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence Requisites for acquisition of domicile. (b) Divorce Act (IV of 1869), S. 10 - Domicile-A, domiciled in England coming over to India and marrying woman residing in India with her parents-Subsequently Madras (India) becoming extended place of residence of A-,A's son B who was born in India , continuing living in India till his death-B's son who was born in India joined Railways service 6n 1922 at Karachi-After partition of India C opted for Pakistan and posted at Rawalpindi-C was married , in Rawalpindi-C had already expressed his in to settle on England sister retirement-C having no intention of returning to India-Held aperson retains his original domicile till he actually .settles in another country and consequently C 'had not domiciled in Pakistan. Murphy v. Murphy and another I L R 10 Lah. 607 ; Munro v. Munro (1840) 7 Cl. & F. 876 and Arthur v. Arthur I L R 24 Lah. 490 rel. (c) Divorce Act (IV of 1869) S. 10-Onus to prove domicile iv on applicant. JUDGMENT B. Z. KAIKAUS, J.-This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises out of an application filed under section 10 of the Divorce Act by the wife (hereinafter called the respondent) for dissolution of marriage in the Court of the District Judge, Rawalpindi. The husband took the objection that he was not domiciled in Pakistan but in the United Kingdom. The learned District Judge gave effect to this plea and dismissed the application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On appeal Akhlaque Husain, J. held that the husband was not domiciled in U. K. but in Pakistan, and accepting the appeal, directed that the application for dissolution of marriage be heard on merits. This is an appeal by the husband (hereinafter called the appellant). The sole question involved in this appeal is as to the domicile of the appellant. 2. The grandfather of the appellant James Carter was admittedly domiciled in England. James Carter had, some time in the year 1857, joined the Royal Artillery and had come over to India. In 1865, he married Matilda Carrick whose parents were residents of India, though it is…
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