Matrimonial jurisdiction turns on genuine last residence, and a delayed judicial order is irregular but not a nullity.

For matrimonial jurisdiction under the Indian Divorce Act, "reside" and "last resided together" require an abode chosen with animus manendi and do not extend to a casual or flying visit. On the facts, the spouses' stay at Trivandrum was treated as their last joint residence, while the Bangalore stop was only a brief transit, so the District Court, Trivandrum had jurisdiction. An order deciding a jurisdictional issue after the time fixed by the High Court was irregular and improper, but it was not a nullity because the court otherwise had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. The proper remedy was to challenge it in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Judge's order deciding the jurisdictional issue after the time fixed by the High Court was a nullity. (ii) Whether the District Court, Trivandrum had jurisdiction under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the footing that the spouses last resided together at Trivandrum and not at Bangalore.

Issue (i): Whether the District Judge's order deciding the jurisdictional issue after the time fixed by the High Court was a nullity.

Analysis: The direction fixing time for disposal was mandatory in form, but the District Court already had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. A decision rendered beyond the time fixed by a superior court, though irregular and improper, does not become a non-existent order or a nullity. The proper course was to challenge it in the manner known to law.

Conclusion: The order was not a nullity and could not be ignored as void.

Issue (ii): Whether the District Court, Trivandrum had jurisdiction under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the footing that the spouses last resided together at Trivandrum and not at Bangalore.

Analysis: Jurisdiction under Section 3(3) turns on where the husband and wife reside or last resided together. Residence requires more than a casual stay or flying visit and imports animus manendi, that is, an intention to make the place an abode, even if temporarily. On the evidence, the stay at Trivandrum was treated as the spouses' abode, while the Bangalore stop was merely a brief transit visit en route to Bombay. The materials, including the correspondence and surrounding circumstances, supported Trivandrum as the place where they last resided together.

Conclusion: The District Court, Trivandrum had jurisdiction, and the objection to territorial jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, and the jurisdictional finding in favour of the respondent was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of matrimonial jurisdiction, "reside" and "last resided together" require an abode chosen with animus manendi and do not include a mere casual or flying visit; an order passed beyond a time fixed by the High Court is irregular but not a nullity if the court otherwise had jurisdiction.

---