<?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>1981 (10) TMI 188 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290113</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act depends on where the marriage was solemnised, where the respondent actually resides when the petition is filed, or where the parties last resided together. A mere temporary stay or casual visit does not amount to residence; the expression &quot;resides&quot; refers to actual residence, not origin or constructive residence. On the stated facts, the marriage was solemnised in New Delhi, the parties last resided together in Delhi, and the respondent&#039;s actual residence at the commencement of proceedings was not village Bagyan. The District Judge, Almora therefore lacked jurisdiction, and the petition had to be returned for presentation before the proper court in Delhi.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2020 16:20:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (10) TMI 188 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290113</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act depends on where the marriage was solemnised, where the respondent actually resides when the petition is filed, or where the parties last resided together. A mere temporary stay or casual visit does not amount to residence; the expression &quot;resides&quot; refers to actual residence, not origin or constructive residence. On the stated facts, the marriage was solemnised in New Delhi, the parties last resided together in Delhi, and the respondent&#039;s actual residence at the commencement of proceedings was not village Bagyan. The District Judge, Almora therefore lacked jurisdiction, and the petition had to be returned for presentation before the proper court in Delhi.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>