<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1966 (3) TMI 96 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279474</link>
    <description>For matrimonial jurisdiction under the Indian Divorce Act, &quot;reside&quot; and &quot;last resided together&quot; require an abode chosen with animus manendi and do not extend to a casual or flying visit. On the facts, the spouses&#039; 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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:29:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 96 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279474</link>
      <description>For matrimonial jurisdiction under the Indian Divorce Act, &quot;reside&quot; and &quot;last resided together&quot; require an abode chosen with animus manendi and do not extend to a casual or flying visit. On the facts, the spouses&#039; 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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>