DOMICILE OF MARRIED WOMEN UNDER THE INDIAN

SUCCESSION ACT, 1925

By

H.SIMRAN

18LLB034

Semester: 4th

Name of the programme: 2 year (B.A., LL.B.)

FAMILY LAW- II

Name of the Faculty Member

Dr. P. Vara Lakshmi

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA , SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035 ANDHRA

PRADESH, INDIA

Date of Submission:12 Dec 2020

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our lecturer Dr. P. Vara Lakshmi
Ma’am who has given me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic
“DOMICILE OF MARRIED WOMEN UNDER THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925”
which also helped me in doing a lot of research and through which I came to know so many
new things. I am really thankful to her.

.
 CONTENTS:

Topic page no.

1. Synopsis………………………………………………………………….1
2. Introduction………………………………………………………………4
3. Background of Law of Domicile…………………………………………6
4. General Principles of Domicile…………………………………………..7
5. Domicile of Dependents………………………………………………….9
6. Judicial interpretations…………………………………………………...13
7. Conclusion……………………………………………………………….21
8. Reference…………………………………………………………………22

TABLE OF CASES:
 Cases Citation
Whicker V Hume (1858) 10 HLC 124
N.Vasundara VS. State Of Mysore AIR 1955 Sc 334
Pradeep Jain Vs. Union Of India (1984)3 SCC 654
Re Egerton’s Will Trusts [1956] 2 All ER 817
Puttick V. A.G
Controller Of Estate Duty Vs Dr. (Mrs.) 1992 42 ITD 427 Coch
Mary Cherian
Controller Of Estate-Duty, Madras V Dr. [1980] 123ITR 104
Ida Bella Scuddar
Neha Saini Versus State Of Uttarakhand & 2009 UTTAR 53
Another Lnind

,
 SYNOPSIS
Title: iDomicile iOf iMarried iWomen iUnder iThe iIndian iSuccession iAct, i1925

Introduction: i

Domicile ias ia iconcept iis iof iimmense iimportance, iboth iin imunicipal ilaw ias iwell ias
iin iPrivate iInternational iLaw ior ithe iconflicts iof ilaws, ias iit iis icalled. iThe iconcept
idenotes i"the iplace iof iliving", ior imore iprecisely ia ipermanent iresidence. iDomicile ias
ipointed iin iHalsbury's iLaws iof iEngland i(Fourth iEdition) iVolume i8, iParagraph i421
i"is ithe ilegal irelationship ibetween ian iindividual iand ia iterritory iwith ia idistinctive
ilegal isystem iwhich iinvokes ithat isystem ias ihis ipersonal ilaw." iAlthough ithe inotion
iwhich ilies ibehind ithe iconcept iof idomicile iis iof i"permanent iresidence" ior ia
i"permanent ihome", iyet idomicile iis iprimarily ia ilegal iconcept ifor ithe ipurposes iof
idetermining iwhat iis ithe i"personal ilaw" iapplicable ito ian iindividual iand itherefore,
ieven iif ian iindividual ihas ino ipermanent iresidence ior ipermanent ihome, ieven ithen ihe
iis iinvested iwith ia i"domicile" ialbeit iby ilaw ior iimplication iof ilaw. i

Aims iAnd iObjectives:

The imain iaim iand iobjective iof ithe iproject iis ito imake ia idetailed istudy ion ithe iLaw
iof iDomicile iof iwomen iunder ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct, i1925. i

Scope iof ithe istudy: i

The istudy ianalysis ithe iDomicile iof iMarried iwomen iin iIndia ionly. iAlso ithe ivarious
iinterpretations iof ithe iword iDomicile iwill ibe iseen iin ithe ijudicial iaspects.

Research iquestions:

1. Whether ithe imarried iwomen ican iget ithe idomicile iof iorigin iwhile ibeing
imarried.
2. Whether iDomicile iand iCitizenship irefer ito ithe isame imeaning. i

Significance iof ithe istudy:

That iis ithe ionly icountry ithat ican ibe iconsidered iin ithe icontext iof ithe iexpression
i"domicile" iand ithe ionly isystem iof ilaw iby iwhich ia iperson iis igoverned iin iIndia, iis
ithe isystem iof ilaw iwhich iprevails iin ithe iwhole icountry iand inot iany isystem iof ilaw
iwhich iprevails iin iany iprovince ior iState. iIt iis ihardly inecessary ito iemphasize ithat

1
iunlike ithe iUnited iStates iof iAmerica, iIndia ihas ia isingle icitizenship. iIt ihas ia isingle
isystem iof iCourts iof ilaw iand ia isingle ijudiciary iand iwe ido inot ihave iin iIndia ithe
iproblem iof iduality ithat ioften iarises iin ithe iAmerican iLaw, ithe iproblem iwhich iarises
ibecause iof ia ifederal icitizenship iand ia iState icitizenship. iTherefore, iin iIndia iwe ihave
ione icitizenship, ithe icitizenship iof iIndia. iWe ihave ione idomicile i- ithe idomicile iin
iIndia iand iwe ihave ione ilegal isystem i- ithe isystem ithat iprevails iin ithe iwhole
icountry. iThe imost ithat ione ican isay iabout ia iperson iin ia iState iis ithat ihe iis
ipermanently iresident iin ia iparticular iState. iBut ias iHalsbury ipoints iout, ito iwhich iwe
ihave ijust imade ireference, ithe imere ifact ithat ia iman's ihome imay ibe ifixed iat ia
iparticular ispot iwithin ithe icountry idoes inot imake ihim idomiciled iin ithat ispot ibut
imakes ihim idomiciled iin ithe iwhole icountry, iand itherefore, iwhether ia iman
ipermanently iresides iin iBombay ior iMadras ior iBengal ior ianywhere idoes inot imake
ihim idomiciled iin iBombay, iMadras ior iBengal ibut imakes ihim idomiciled iin iIndia;
iBombay, iMadras iand iBengal ibeing iparticular ispots iin iIndia ias ia icountry.

Research iMethodology:

The iresearcher ihas iused idoctrinal iand ianalytical imethod iof iresearch. iThe iresearcher
ihas iconfined iher istudy ito ivarious ibooks iand iarticles irelated ito iFamily iLaw.

Literature iReview:

 Indian iSuccession iAct

Citation: iParuck i12th iedition i2019
This iTitle iis ithe imost icomprehensive iand iauthoritative iwork ion ithe iIndian
iSuccession iAct ithat iexplains iand iillustrates ithe iprovisions iof ithe iAct iin ia
ilucid, icomprehensive iand isystematic imanner. iIt iintends ito icapture iall imajor
ilandmark ijudgments iof iSupreme iCourt iand ivarious iHigh iCourts. iAll ithe
ilegislative ichanges ihave ibeen iduly iincorporated. iIt iis ia istandard ireference ifor
iJudges, ilawyers, iIn ihouse iCounsels, iLaw ifirms, istudents, ilaw iprofessors iand
iresearch ischolars. iThis iEdition ihas ibeen iextensively irevised ito iincorporate ithe
irelevant iand icurrent ilandmark ijudgments iof ithe iSupreme iCourt iand ivarious
iHigh iCourts. iUp ito idate iwith ithe irecent icase ilaws iand idevelopment isince
ithe ilast ipublication. iOverruled idecisions ihave ibeen ichecked iand ichanges ihave
ibeen imade iaccordingly. iSynopsis iof ievery ichapter ihas ibeen iincorporated. iThe
ibook ioffers ia isystematic iexplanation iof ithe iprovisions iof ithe iAct iand iis

2
 iarranged iunder ilogical ichapters iand iheadings. iThe iEdition icontains isynopsis
iof iall ithe ichapters imaking iit iuser ifriendly. iAll ithe imajor ilegislative ichanges
iand ithe iamendments ihave ibeen iincorporated. iThe iBook iintends ito iincorporate
ilandmark ijudgements iof ivarious iHigh iCourts iand iSupreme iCourt.

 The iMatrimonial iDomicile iAnd iThe iProperty iRelations iOf iMarried

iPersons
Citation: iInternational iand iComparative iLaw iQuarterly, iVol. i6, iIssue i1
i(January i1957), ipp. i28-35 iStone.O.M.
The iarticle idiscusses iabout ithe iMarried iWomen's iProperty iAct iof i1870,
ieroded iby ithe iAct iof i1882, iand iall ibut isubmerged iby ithe ifollowing iflood iof
iremedial ilegislation, ithe idoctrine iof iunity isurvives, iinter ialia i(albeit inot
iunscathed) iin ithree iimportant ibranches iof iEnglish ilaw, inamely, itaxation, i3
inationality,' iand ithe iunity iof idomicile iin ithe iconflict iof ilaws, iby iwhich ia
iwife iautomatically iacquires ia idomicile iof idependence iupon iher ihusband, iand
ifollows ievery isubsequent ichange iin ihis idomicile. iAlso itheory iis iclosely
ilinked iwith iDr. iCheshire's idesire ito iextend ithe icontrol iof ithe ilaw iof ithe
imatrimonial idomicile ito isuch imatters ias ithe icapacity iof ithe iparties ito imarry
ieach iother. iThe ifact iis ithat iany itheory iof iunity ibetween ihusband iand iwife iis
ibound ito icome iinto iconflict iwith ithe igeneral iprinciples iof ithe imodern
iEnglish ilaw iat itwo.
 Recent iDevelopments iIn iThe iLaw iControlling iNationality iOf iMarried
iWomen
Citation: iGeorge iWashington iLaw iReview i, iVol. i1, iIssue i3 i(March i1933),
ipp. i330-356 iMiller,Robert S.
This iarticle iis ibased ion ithe iancient iand iunvarying imaxim ithat ithe iwife itakes
iher ihusband's istatus, ia imaxim ibased ion ithe inature iof imarriage, iwhich imakes
itwo ipersons ione, igiving ithe ihusband ipreeminence iover ithe iwife."' iThis
istatement, itaken iwith ithe ifact ithat iArticle i12 iwas iadopted iwithout
idiscussion,4 iindicates ithat iits iprovisions iwere- ino iinnovation; ithat ithe irule
iconferring iupon ian ialien iwoman ithe inationality iof iher ihusband iis ian iold ione
ion ithe icontinent. i

3
Prior ito ithe iCode iof i1804, itherefore, ithere iwas iidentity iof inationality iwhere
ian ialien iwoman imarried ia inational, ibut inot iwhere ia iwoman inational imarried
ian ialien. iAfter ithe iCode iwas iadopted, ihowever, ithere iwas isingle inationality
iwithin ithe imarital iunion iin iboth iinstances, iso ifar ias ithe iFrench ilaw iwas
iconcerned

4
 I. INTRODUCTION

The iinception iof ithe iconcept iof idomicile iis icircled iwith iseveral imisconceptions.
iSometimes ithe iterm iis iconfused ieither iwith inationality ior iwith iresidence. iThe
igeneral iview iabout idomicile iis i'permanent ihome' ibut iLord iCranworth iin iWhicker iv
iHume1 i.The iconcept iof idomicile iin icommon ilaw iis iderived ifrom ithe iRoman ilaw.
iThe iterm idomicilium iis iderived ifrom idomum icolere, ito ifoster ior iinhabit ithe ihome.
iThere iare ithree idifferent iclasses iof idomicile inamely, iDomicile iof iOrigin, iDomicile
iof iChoice, iand iDomicile iof iDependence. iThe irules iof idomicile iof iorigin iquite
isatisfactory ireflect ithe isocial ifactors. iOne iacquires iit iat ithe itime iof ihis ibirth iand
ibecause iof iits istrong itenacity iit iis ihard ito ilose iand iit iautomatically irevives ionce
idomicile iof ichoice iis iextinguished. iIt ihas iproven ito ibe imore itenacious iin ia iway
ithat ieven iif ia iperson ileaves ihis icountry iof iorigin iwith ian iintention inever ito ireturn
iback, ihis idomicile iof iorigin isurvives iuntil ihe ihas iacquired ia idomicile iof ichoice.
iCorporations iare ithe ientities iendowed iwith ilegal ipersonality iunder imunicipal ilaw,
imay ibe ilikened ito iphysical ipersons iand, ion ithis ibasis, iregarded ias inationals iof ia
iparticular iState. iThe iplace iof iincorporation iis iregarded ias ithe idomicile iof ithe
icorporation. iShips iare igoverned iby ithe ilaw iof iFlag.

Since ithe iorigin iof ithe iconcept iof idomicile, ithere ihave ibeen iseveral imisconceptions
iattached ito iit. iSometimes ithe iterm iis iconfused ieither iwith inationality ior iwith
iresidence. iThe igeneral iview iabout idomicile iis i'permanent ihome' ibut iLord iCranworth
iin iWhicker iv iHume ihas idefined idomicile ias-

"By i'domicile' iwe imean ihome, ithe ipermanent ihome, iand iif iyou ido inot iunderstand
iyour ipermanent ihome, iI iam iafraid ithat ino iillustration idrawn ifrom iforeign iwriters ior
iforeign ilanguages iwill ivery imuch ihelp iyou ito iit. iI ithink ithe ibest iI ihave iheard iis
ione iwhich idescribes ithe ihome ias ithe iplace i'unde inon isit idiscessurus isi inihal iavocet;
iunde icum iprofectus iest, iperegrinari ividetur.

1
i(1858) i10 iHLC i124

5
A iperson iis isaid ito ihave idomicile iin ithe icountry iwhere ihe iresides ipermanently
iwithout iany iintention iof irelocating ianywhere ielse. iOn ithe iother ihand, ia iperson idoes
inot icease ito ihave ihis idomicile iin ia icountry imerely idue ito ithe ireason iof itemporary
iabode ielsewhere.

The itraditional iconcept iof idomicile, ihowever, ihas ireceived icriticism ifrom ireform
iagencies iin iEngland ias iwell ias iin iother icountries iwhich ifollow ithe iEnglish icommon
ilaw. iThis iis imainly idue ito itwo igrounds, iwhich iwere ialso ipointed iout iin i1954 i(First
iReport iof ithe iPrivate iInternational iLaw iCommittee) ias ifollows-

 The icontention irelates ito ithe irevival iof idomicile iof iorigin iwhen idomicile iof
ichoice iis iabandoned iwithout iobtaining ia inew idomicile iof ichoice, iand ithe ifact
ithat ithere iis iheavy iburden iof iproof ion ithe iperson iwho iasserts ithe ichange iin
ithe idomicile iof iorigin iwhich iseems ito ibe iirrational iand iunjustified.
 iThe idifficulty iattached iin iproving ithe iintention irequired ito iacquire ia
idomicile iof ichoice.

The iconcept iof iDomicile iis icrucial isince iit iis ithe iconnecting ifactor itraditionally iused
iin icommon ilaw isystems. iThere iis ino iuniform iconcept iof idomicile iand iso
iinterpretation iof iits imeaning iis ilargely ileft iopen ito ithe ilex ifori.

6
 II. BACKGROUND iOF iLAW iOF iDOMICILE

Roman ilaw iis iconsidered ito ibe ithe imother iof ithe iconcept iof idomicile iin icommon
ilaw. iThe iterm idomicilium iis iderived ifrom idomum icolere, ito ifoster ior iinhabit ithe
ihome. iDomicile iis inot iany iplace iof iresidence ibut ia iplace iof ihabitual iresidence. iIn
ithe iancient itimes, ithe iordinary iman's iDiocese ihad iauthority iover ihim iin ithe
iConsistory iCourt iin iEngland iand ia iman's idomicile iin ia iDiocese iwas iestablished iby
ihis ihabitual iresidence. iThe iBishop iof ithe iDiocese iof ithe idomicile ihad iecclesiastical
ijurisdiction iand iin iEngland ithis iincluded iprobate iand imatrimonial ijurisdiction ieven
ibefore ithe iMatrimonial iCauses iAct, i1857 iand ithe iCourt iof iProbate iAct, i1857.
iEnglish istatutes idealing iwith imarriage icharacterise ithe iplace iwhere ia iman idwells, iof
ihis idwelling iplace; iand idomicilium iis ia ihabitation ior ia idwelling.

Importance iof iDomicile:

Domicile iacts ias ia iconnecting ifactor ifor ivarious ilegal isystems.

 Domicile ican ibe iused ias ia ijurisdictional ilink iwhich iis ia ipre-requisite ifor
iassumption iof ijurisdiction iby ithe iforum ior ifor irecognition iand iassumption iof
ia iforeign icourt's ijurisdiction.
 Domicile idetermines ian iindividual's iright ito ivote, ihis iright ito ihold ipublic
ioffice, ihis ientitlement ito isupport iin irespect iof ivarious ineeds isuch ias iill-health
ior iunemployment iand ihis iliability ito ivarious iforms iof itaxation.
 There iis ino iperson iwithout ia idomicile ibecause iit iis inecessary ito iconnect ia
iperson iwith isome ilegal isystem ito iregulate ihis ilegal irelationships.

Definition iof iDomicile: i

“Domicile imeans ipermanent ihome, iand iif ithat iwas inot iunderstood iby iitself ino
iillustration icould ihelp imake iit iintelligible”2.According ito iMORRIS idefinition iin i“It
iis iimportant ito iidentify ian iindividual’s ipersonal ilaw, iwhich igoverns iquestions
iconcerning ithe ipersonal iand iproprietary irelationships ibetween imembers iof ia ifamily.
iPlace iof ibirth iis ian iinadequate icriteria iby iwhich ito iidentify ithe ipersonal ilaw”3.The
idomicile iof ia iperson iis iin ithat icountry iin iwhich ihe ieither ihas ior iis ideemed iby ilaw

2
iParas iDiwan: iPrivate iInternational iLaw,4th i(End),p145.
3
iMorris, ithe iConflict iof iLaws, i7th iEdition, ip29.

7
ito ihave ihis ipermanent ihome. iThe iconcept iof idomicile ihas ibeen iexplained iby ia
idistinguished iAmerican iJudge, iOliver iWendell iHolmes iJ, i“the ivery imeaning iof
idomicile iis ithe itechnically ipre-eminent iheadquarters ithat ievery iperson iis icompelled
ito ihave iin iorder ithat icertain iright iand iduties ithat ihave iattached ito iit iby ithe ilaw
imay ibe idetermined”4 i.All iauthors iexplained iin isame iway. iWe iare ifollowing
icommon ilaw ifor iconcept iof idomicile ibecause ithey iis ino iproper ilaw iin iIndia.

III. GENERAL iPRINCIPLES iOF iDOMICILE

Under iboth iIndian iand iEnglish iprivate iinternational ilaw ithere iare ifour igeneral irules
iin irespect iof idomicile5

i. No iperson ican ibe iwithout ia idomicile;

ii. No iperson ican iat ithe isame itime ihave imore ithan ione idomicile;
iii. An iexisting idomicile iis ipresumed ito icontinue iuntil iit iis iproved ithat ia inew
idomicile ihas ibeen iacquired; iand
iv. Domicile idenotes ithe iconnection iof ia iperson iwith ia iterritorial isystem iof ilaw.

No iperson ican ibe iwithout ia idomicile: iThis irule iis ibased iupon ithe ipractical
inecessity iof iconnecting ievery iperson iwith isome ilegal isystem iby iwhich iquestions
iaffecting ihis ifamily irelations iand ifamily iproperties iare ito ibe idetermined. i“It iis ia
isettled iprinciple”6. iIn icase iof iUdnv ivs. iUdny i“that ino iman ishall ibe iwithout ia
idomicile, iand isecure ithis iresult ithe ilaw iattributes ito ievery iindividual ias isoon ias ihe
iis iborn, ithe idomicile iof ihis ifather, iif ithe ichild iis ilegitimate iand ithe idomicile iof
imother iif iillegitimate ithis ihas ibeen icalled ithe idomicile iof iorigin iand iis iinvoluntary.
iDomicile iof iorigin iprevails iuntil ia inew idomicile ihas ibeen iacquired. iBut ithe imoment
ia iperson iloses ihis iacquired idomicile ihis iacquired idomicile, ithe idomicile iof iorigin
isprings iback ito ihim

A iperson icannot ihave imore ithan ione idomicile: iAt iany igiven itime ithrough idual
icitizenship iis ipermitted iby iseveral icountries. iMain iobject iof ithis irule iis ithe isame ias
ithat iof ithe ifirst itime ito iconnect ia iperson iwith ia idefinite ilegal isystem. iDomicile
isignifies iconnection iwith ia iterritorial isubject ito ia isingle ilegal isystem iof ilaw. iWhat
iis isometimes icalled ia i“law idistrict”. iLike ia ifederal istate iwhere ithe ilegislative

4
iWilliams iV.Osenton(1914).
5
iParas iDiwan: iPrivate iInternational iLaw,4th i(End), iDeep i& iDeep iPublication, ip145
6
iIbid, ip153.

8
iauthority iis idistributed ibetween icentral iand istate ilegislatures, ithe ilaw idistrict iis,
igenerally ithe istate iwhere ithe iconcerned iperson ihas iestablished ihis ihome. iLike
icitizenship idomicile iis ialso ione ifor ithe iwhole iof iIndia, iClarifying ithe iimpression
icreated iin iD.P iJoshi iVS. iMadhya iBharat iand iN.Vasundara iVS. iState iof iMysore7
ithat ias istate ihave iindependent ipower ito imake ilaws iwith irespect ito imarriage,
idivorce, isuccession, ietc... ithey imay icreate idifferent ilegal isystem ifor ithe ipurpose iof
idomicile, ithe isupreme icourt iin iPradeep iJain ivs. iUnion iof iIndia8 iheld ithat iin ithese
itwo icases ithe iword idomicile iwas iused ito iconvey ithe iIndia ithe iidea iof iintention ito
ireside ipermanently ior iindefinitely” ifor ithe ipurpose iof iadmission ito imedical ior iother
itechnical iinstitutions iwithin ia istate iand inot iin ithe itechnical isense iin iwhich iit iis
iused iin iprivate iinternational ilaw.

Presumption iin ifavor iof ian iexisting idomicile: iAn iexisting idomicile iis ipresumed ito
icontinue iuntil iit iis iproved ithat inew idomicile ihas ibeen iacquired. iHence ithe iburden
iof iproving ia ichange iof idomicile ilies iinvariable ion ithose iwho iallege ithat ia ichange
ihas ioccurred. iIf ithe ievidence iadduced iis iconflicting ior iis inot iconvincing, ithen icourt
ihas ito idecide iin ifavor iof iexisting idomicile.

Domicile iis idetermined iaccording ito iEnglish ilaw: iIn ia icase iinvolving iforeign
ielement, ithe iquestion ias ito iwhere ia iperson iis idomiciled iis ito ibe idetermined
iaccording ito iEnglish iconcept iof idomicile iand inot iaccording ito iforeign iconcept. iIn
iother iwords, ifor ithe ipurpose iof iEnglish iPrivate iInternational iLaw, idomicile imeans
idomicile iin iEnglish isense. iThus iin ithe ieye iof iEnglish ilaw, ia iperson idomicile iin
iEngland imay iacquire ia idomicile iof ichoice iin iFrances iif ihe isatisfies ithe iEnglish
irules, ialthough ihe imay ifail ito isatisfy ithe iFrench irules.

Kinds iof iDomicile:

There iare ithree idifferent iclasses iof idomicile inamely-

Domicile iof iOrigin, i

Domicile iof iChoice, iand

Domicile iof iDependence

7
iAIR i1955 iSc i334.
8
i(1984)3 iSCC i654.

9
 IV. DOMICILE iOF iDEPENDENTS

Which imeans ithat ithe idomicile iof ithe idependent iperson/s iis idependent ion, iand
iusually ichanges iwith, ithe idomicile iof isomeone ielse? iThe iobject iof idetermining ia
iperson’s idomicile iis ito iconnect ithat iperson iwith isome ilegal isystem ifor icertain ilegal
ipurposes. iIn iGeneral iat iCommon iLaw, idependents, ithat iis, imarried iwomen, iminors
iand imentally ideficient ipersons iwere iregarded ias iincapable iof iacquiring ia idomicile
ion itheir iown, iand itheir idomicile ifollowed ithat iof ithe iperson ithey iwere iregarded ias
ibeing idependent ion. iThe iCommon ilaw irule iprovided ithat iwives iare idependents iof
itheir ihusbands, iminors ithe idependents iof ithe iparent ithrough iwhom ithe iminor iderives
ihis idomicile iof iorigin, ithe ifather iin ithe icase iof ilegitimate ichildren iborn iwhilst ihe
iwas ialive iand ithe imother iin ithe icase iof iboth iillegitimate ichildren iand ilegitimate
ichildren iborn iafter ithe ideath iof ithe ifather i,9whilst ithey iremain idependents,
idependent ipersons icannot iindependently ichange itheir idomicile iof iorigin iif ion ithe
iother ihand ithe ihusband ior ithe iappropriate iparent ichange ihis ior iher idomicile, ithe
idomicile iof ithe idependent iusually ichange iwith ithe idomicile iof isuch ipersons.

DOMICILE iOF iMARRIED iWOMEN

A iwife’s idomicile iduring iher imarriage ifollows ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband.

Exception.—The iwife’s idomicile ino ilonger ifollows ithat iof iher ihusband iif ithey iare
iseparated iby ithe isentence iof ia icompetent icourt, ior iif ithe ihusband iis iundergoing ia
isentence iof itransportation.

[s i16.1] iMarried iwoman’s idomicile.—

The idoctrine ithat ithe idomicile iof ithe iwife iis ithat iof iher ihusband iis ifounded ion ithe
iduty iof ithe iwife ito ilive iwith iher ihusband. iTherefore, iit iis ienacted iby isection i15
ithat iby imarriage, ia iwoman iacquires ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband i10and isection i16
iprovides ithat iduring imarriage ithe iwife’s idomicile ifollows ithat iof iher ihusband. iThis
irule ihas ibeen idescribed ias ithe ilast ibarbarous irelic iof ia iwife’s iservitude iby iLord
iDenning iMR iin iGray iv iFarmosa. iSometimes iparties ibefore imarriage icontemplate
ichange iof idomicile ishortly iafter imarriage. iIn isuch ia icase, ithe ilaw iof ithe icountry iin

9
iSection i7, iIndian iSuccession iAct i1925.
10
iChristoper iAndrew iv iAnne iAndrew iNeelakantan, iAIR i1959 iRaj. i133 i[LNIND i1959 RAJ 162] i.

10
iwhich ithe iparties iintended ito isettle iimmediately iafter imarriage iand iin iwhich icountry
ithey idid iin ifact isettle iand iin iwhich ithey icould iforesee ithey iwould iremain ifor ithe
irest iof itheir imarried ilife, ishould ibe iallowed ito igovern itheir imutual iproprietary
irights. iSuch ian iagreement ibetween iparties ito ia imarriage imade ibefore imarriage ito
ichange itheir idomicile iimmediately iafter imarriage imay ibe ienough ito ilead ithe icourt
ito iinfer ithat ithe iparties iintended ito iacquire ia inew idomicile ifrom ithe imoment iof
itheir imarriage.11 iA iwidow iretains idomicile iof iher ilate ihusband iuntil iit iis ichanged
iby iher. iA imarried iwoman iacquires ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband iif ishe ihas inot ithe
isame idomicile ibefore imarriage. iThe iwife’s idomicile ifollows ithat iof iher ihusband iand
iso ilong ias ithe imarriage iis isubsisting, ishe icannot iacquire ia iseparate idomicile iof iher
iown. iNothing ishort iof idissolution iof imarriage iwill ienable ia imarried iwoman ito
iclaim ia iseparate idomicile. iA imarried igirl icannot ichange iher idomicile iat iher iwill iso
ilong ias ishe iis imarried iand iwhere ishe iis ia iminor, ithe ionly iperson iwho ican idecide
ithe iquestion iis iher ihusband, ibeing ithe ilegal iguardian. i

[s i16.2] iException.—
By ithe iException ito isection i16 iit iis ienacted ithat ithe iwife’s idomicile iwill inot ifollow
ithat iof iher ihusband:

i. If ithey iare iseparated iby ithe isentence iof ia icompetent icourt, ii.e. iby idivorce ior
iby ijudicial iseparation. iBut iif ithe imarriage iis ivoid ifrom iits iinception ithe iwife
iwill inot ihave ichanged iher idomicile iby ivirtue iof isuch ivoid imarriage. iIf,
ihowever, ithe imarriage iis ivoidable ithe iwife iwill ihave iacquired iher ihusband’s
idomicile iuntil ithe imarriage iis ideclared ivoid.
ii. If ithe ihusband iis iundergoing ia isentence iof itransportation.

Except iin ithese itwo icases ithis iAct idoes inot irecognise ithe iacquisition iby iwife iof ia
idomicile iother ithan ithat iof iher ihusband. iSuch ia iright iwas inot ieven irecognised iby
iEnglish iLaw iupto i1956. iIn ithat iyear ihowever, iDanekwerts iJ, iheld ion ithe ifacts iof
ithe icase ihe iwas itrying ithat ithe itestatrix iwho iresided iin iGuernsey iat ithe itime iof iher
ideath iand ihad ilived ithere ifor iten iyears, ihad iacquired ia idomicile iof ichoice iin
iGuernsey, ialthough iher ihusband iwho ihad idied isome iweeks ibefore iher ihad idomicile
iin iEngland. i

11
iRe iEgerton’s iWill iTrusts, i[1956] 2 All ER 817

11
Even iapart ifrom istatutory iexception, ithe iSupreme iCourt ifound iin iNarsimhaRao iv
iVenkatalaxmi, iin ia imatrimonial idispute ifor idivorce ithat iby itheir imarriage ia iwoman
idomiciled iin iIndia iwith ia iperson, iwho iwas ihimself ia ibird iof ipassage iin iMissourie,
iUSA, icould inot ibe isaid ito ihave ilost iher idomicile iin iIndia iand ibe isubjected ito
ijurisdiction iof ithe icourt iin iMissourie. iInterpreting idomicile ito imean ipermanent
iresidence iwith iintent ito imake iit ione’s ihome, ithe icontinuance iof ithe iwife iin iIndia
idid inot iresult iin ithe ichange iof iher idomicile iand ifound ithe isituation ito iconstitute
ione iof ithe iexceptions ito ithe irule i(of ithe iwife’s idomicile ifollowing iher ihusband
iupon imarriage) iwhich igives iprotection ito iwoman iand ifrees iher ifrom ithe ibondage iof
ithe ityrannical iand iservile irule ithat iwife’s idomicile ifollows ithat iof iher ihusband.
iLord iDenning iin iGray iv iFormosa, ihas icriticised ithis irule iand isaid ithe ilast
ibarbarous irelic iof iwife’s iservitude. iIn iAdams iv iAdams, iit iwas iheld ithat ithe irule iis
ia icompletely ioutmodeled ilegal iconcept.

The iwidow iretains ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband iafter ihis ideath, iunless ishe ihas
ichanged iit iafter ihis ideath. i

The iword i“sentence” iin isection i16 imeans iboth ia idecree ifor idivorce iand ia idecree
ifor ijudicial iseparation iand iafter ia idecree ifor idivorce ithe iwife imay iselect iher iown
idomicile. iBut iif ithe iparties ilive iseparately iunder ia ideed iof iseparation, ithe iexception
iwill inot iapply. i

Coupled iwith ithe iquestion iof ithe iwife iacquiring ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband, iis ithe
iquestion ialso iof inationality. iIf ian iIndian inational imarries ia iwoman iof idifferent
inationality, ithen iher idomicile iwould ifollow ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband, ibut iin
iorder ito iacquire icitizenship iof iIndia ishe iwould ihave ito iapply ifor iregistration iof
icitizenship iunder ithe iCitizenship iAct.12

Under iEnglish iLaw

Under iEnglish icommon ilaw, ithe idomicile iof ia imarried iwoman iwas ithe isame ias iand
ichanged iwith ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband. iThis irule iwas iconsidered ias iabsolute
iadmitting iof ino iexceptions, iwhatever iare ithe icircumstances. iHistorically iit iwas ibased
iupon ithe iancient imaxim iof ithe icommon ilaw ithat ihusband iand iwife iwas ione iand
ithe isame iperson iin ithe ieye iof ithe ilaw13. iThe iabove irule iof iunity iof idomicile iof

12
iSee isection i5 i(1)(c), Citizenship Act, 1955.
13
iPrivate iinternational iLaw, iAuthor-Paras iDiwan, iPublication- iDeep i&Deep, i4th iEdition, ip165.

12
ihusband iand iwife ihad ibeen isubject ito ivigorous icriticism iboth iacademic iwriters iand
ijudges. i

In icase iof iPuttick iv. iA.G, ithe ipetitioner i, ia iGerman inational iwith ia iGerman
idomicile iof iorigin i,was iarrested iin iGerman iand icharged iwith ia inumber iof iserious
ioffence ithere, iwhile ion ibail i, ishe iabsconded iand iusing ian iillegally iobtained ipassport
ifrom iGerman inational, icome ito iEngland iand imarried ian iEnglish iman iin1975. iThe
iquestion ibefore ithe icourt iwas iwhether ishe ihad iacquired ian iEnglish idomicile. iIt iwas
iheld ithat irule iof iunity iof idomicile iof ihusband iand iwife ihad ibeen iabolished iby ithe
iDomicile iand iMatrimonial iproceedings iAct,1973 iand ithat i, itherefore ishe idid inot
iacquire ia idomicile iin iEngland. iThe icourt ifurther iheld ithat ishe idid inot iand icould
inot iacquire ia idomicile iof ichoice iin iEngland ias ishe iwas istaying iEngland ito iavoid
itrial iin iGermany iand inot ito isetup ia ipermanent ihome ithe iillegal ientry iand iresidence
iaccording ito ithe icourt, ibarred iher ifrom iacquiring ian iEnglish iDomicile iof ichoice. i

But iin iIndia ithe inow icompletely ioutmoded ilegal iconcept iof ithe iunity iof idomicile iof
ithe ihusband iand iwife icontinues ito ibe iin iforce iunaltered. iSection i15 i&16 iof ithe
iIndian iSuccession iAct iare ibased iupon ithe iold iEnglish irule. iThe icommon ilaw
icountries iearlier ifollowed iEnglish iCommon iLaw iRules. iThe irule ithat imarried
iwomen ihad ithe idomicile iof itheir ihusband ihas ihowever, ibeen iabolished iin iAustralia,
iCanada, ithe iRepublic iof iIreland, iand iNew iZealand iso ithat iin iall ithese icountries, ia,
imarried iwoman iis itreated ias ihaving ian iindependent idomicile ilike iany iother iperson. i

A iwoman iwho imarried ibefore i1 iJanuary i1974, ihave iher ihusband's idomicile i(as ia
idomicile iof idependency). iOn i1 iJanuary i1974 ithe irules ichanged, iso ithat iwomen iwho
imarried ion ior iafter ithat idate ino ilonger itake itheir ihusband's idomicile; ithey iretain
itheir iown idomicile iof iorigin iand ican iacquire itheir iown idomicile iof ichoice. iWomen
iwho iwere imarried ibefore ithat idate iretained itheir ihusband's idomicile ias iat ithat idate,
ibut ithis iis itreated ias ia idomicile iof ichoice, inot idependency.

V. JUDICIAL iINTERPRETATION iTHROUGH iCASES

13
CONTROLLER iOF iESTATE iDUTY iVS iDR. i(MRS.) iMARY iCHERIAN
CITATION: i1992 i42 iITD i427 iCoch
COURT: iIncome iTax iAppellate iTribunal i– iCochin
FACTS: i
 Mary iCherian ipassed iaway ion i16-10-1981. iThe iAccountable iPerson iat
ithe itime iof ifiling ithe istatement iof iaccounts istated ithat ithe ideceased
iwas idomiciled iin iBahrain. i
 In isupport iof ihis iclaim ithe iAccountable iPerson ifiled ibefore ithe
iAssistant iController iof iEstate iDuty ia iletter idated i16-9-1979 iwritten iby
ithe ideceased ifrom iBahrain ito iher ihusband iwherein ishe ihas ispecifically
iand icategorically iexpressed iher idesire ithat ishe ihad idecided ito iadopt
ithe idomicile iof iBahrain iand isettle idown iin iBahrain ipermanently. i
 It iwas ialso istated ithat ithe ichange iof idomicile iwas ialso iprompted iby
ireason iof iher iterminal iillness iand ithe imedical ipractice ishe ihad
iestablished. i
 The iclaim iof ithe iAccountable iPerson iwas irejected iby ithe ilearned
iAssistant iController iof iEstate iDuty. iDiscussing ithe ipoint iin idetail, ithe
ilearned iAssessing iOfficer icame ito ithe iconclusion ithat iby ivirtue iof
Sections 15 and 16 of ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct, ithe ideceased icannot
ihave iany idomicile iother ithan ithe idomicile iof iher ihusband.

ARGUMENTS iOF iPLAINTIFF:

The ifact ithat ithe ideceased iwas ian iIndian iPassport iHolder iand icitizen iof
iIndia iand ibecause iher ihusband iwas ian iIndian idomicile iand ishe ihas inot
iacquired iany iimmovable iproperty ioutside iIndia icannot idislodge ithe iclaim
iof ithe iAccountable iPerson ithat ithe ideceased ihad iby ichoice ibecame ia
idomicile iof iBahrain.

ARGUMENTS iOF iDEFENDANTS:

They icontended ithat imere iintention ialone iis inot isufficient ito isay ithat ithe
ideceased ihad iacquired ia idomicile ibecause ias ifar ias iBahrain iis iconcerned
inormally ithat iGovernment idoes inot igive idomicile istatus ito ia iperson,

14
 iespecially iin iher icase iwhere ithe iextension ifor ithe iwork ipermit iis irenewed
iyear iafter iyear. i

RATIO iDECIDENDI:

Section 5 iof iIndian iSuccession iAct iregulates isuccession ito ideceased

iperson's iimmovable iand imovable iproperty. iThis iSection iapplies ito ithe
iimmovable iproperty iin iIndia iof ia ideceased iperson. iWherever isuch iperson
imay ihave ihad ihis idomicile iat ithe itime iof ideath, ithe isuccession ito isuch
iproperties ishall ibe iregulated iby ithe ilaw iof iIndia. iSuccession ito ithe
imovable iproperty iof ia ideceased iperson ishall ibe iregulated iby ivirtue iof
iSection i5(2) iby ithe ilaw iof ithe icountry iin iwhich isuch iperson ihad ithe
idomicile iat ithe itime iof ideath.

iSection i10 italks iabout ithe imode iof iacquisition iof inew idomicile. iSection
10 iof ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct ispeaks iacquisition iof idomicile ionly iabout
ia i"man". iIf ithe iLegislature ihad iintended ithat ia iwoman ican ialso ihave ithat
iprivilege iit iwould ihave iused ithe iword i'person' iin iSections i15 i& 16 ialso,
ias iin iSections i5, i6 iand i7. iIf iwoman iis idiscriminated ias iagainst i'man' iin
ithese isections, iit iis ia imatter ito ibe iagitated ibefore ithe iHigher iForums iand
inot ibefore ithe iTribunal.

JUDGEMENT:

In ithe iinstant icase iof ithe iassessee iit iis ionly ia iprivate iletter iwritten iby ithe
ideceased ito iher ihusband iintimating iher iwill ito ichange ithe idomicile. iOf
icourse ithe igenuineness iof ithe iletter iis inot idisputed. iBut, ithe ifact ithat ishe
iwas ia imarried ilady iwhose ifamily iwas iaway iin iIndia iand iher irelation
iwith ithe ifamily iwas icordial, iis iindicative iof ithe ifactor ithat ithe iexpression
iin ithe iletter icannot ibe iaccepted iin itoto. iIn iour iconsidered iview, iwhatever
ibe iher ipersonal ichoice iit ihas ino ilegal ieffect iin iview iof ithe iclear
iprovisions iof iSections i15 i& i16 iof ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct.

CONTROLLER iOF iESTATE-DUTY, iMADRAS iV iDR. iIDA iBELLA

iSCUDDAR
CITATION: i[1980] i123ITR i104.
FACTS:

15
 Dr. iIda iB. iScuddar. iShe iwas iborn iin ithe iNorth iArcot iDistrict ion ithe
i19th iDecember, i1870. iShe icomes ifrom ia ifamily iof imedical imen. iDr.
iJohn iScuddar, iher igrandfather, iwas ia isuccessful iNew iYork idoctor. iBut
iin i1819, ia ipamphlet ientitled i"The iclaims iof isix ihundred imillions"
ifired ihis iimagination. iClosing ihis ishop ialmost iovernight iand ipacking
ihis ibelongings, ihe isailed ieast itowards iCeylon iwith ihis ifamily iand ithen
iset ifoot ion ithis isoil, ii.e., iin ithis ipart iof ithe icountry.
 iDr. iIda iScuddar's ifather iwas iworking ifor isome itime iin iTindivanam,
iafter ihis ireturn ito iIndia ias ia iqualified imedical ipractitioner iin ior iabout
i1861 ito ijoin ithe iArcot iMission ithere, iand ithereafter iwent iover ito
iVellore iworking iin ithe isame iMission. iThe ifamily iwas ithereafter
iresiding iin iVellore iand icontinued iits iconnection iwith ithe iMissionDr.
iIda iScuddar iwent iaway ito ithe iUnited iStates iin ior iabout i1878 ias ia
ichild iof ieight, ifor iher ieducation, iand iafter igraduating ifrom ithere, ishe
ireturned ito iIndia iat ia itime iwhen iher iparents iwere iat iTindivanam.
 In i1894, ishe ireturned ito ithe iUnited iStates ifor istudying imedicine iand
ijoined ithe imedical icollege iin ithe iStates. iAfter igraduating iin imedicine,
ishe ireturned ito iIndia ion ithe iNew iYears iday iin i1900. iWhile iin ithe
iUnited iStates, ishe ilearned ithat iher idenomination iof ithe iMission ihad
idecided ithat ithere ishould ibe ia ihospital ifor iwomen iin iVellore.
 During ithe iperiod iof iher istay iand iservice iin iIndia, ishe ihad iacquired ia
i10 iacre iplot iat iKodaikanal iand iretired ito iit ion ithe i19th iof iAugust,
i1946. iThe iplace iis iknown ias iHill iTop. iShe iused ito imake iperiodical
ivisits ito iVellore, ieven iafter iretirement, itill ishe idied ion i24th iMay,
i1960.
ARGUMENTS iOF iPLAINTIFF:
Dr. iIda iScuddar ihad iforeign idomicile iwas ithat ithe idomicile iof iorigin imust
iprevail. iThis iis ionly ia irule iof ipresumption. iThe ionus iof iproof iis ion ithe
iperson ipropounding ithe itheory ithat ithe idomicile iof iorigin ihas ibeen
idisplaced iby ithe idomicile iof ichoice. iUntil ithe idomicile iof ichoice iis
iestablished, ithe idomicile iof iorigin iwould icontinue. i
ARGUMENTS iOF iDEFENDANTS:

16
She ihad ispent iall iher ilife, ienergy iand iresources iin ifounding iand ibuilding
iup ithis iinstitution. iShe ihad ino iother iinterest iin ilife. iThere iis iabsolutely
inothing iby iway iof iany imaterial ito ishow ithat ishe iconsidered iIndia ito ibe
ionly ia itemporary iplace iof istay ifor ieking iout ia ilivelihood ior icompleting ia
ifixed iproject, iand ithat ishe iwanted ito igo iback ito ithe iUnited iStates iat
isome ipoint iof itime ior iother, iand ilive iin icomfort iand idie ithere.
RATIO iDECIDENDI: i
Originally ishe iappeared ito ihave ian iidea iof imarrying iand iquietly isettling
idown iin ilife. iBut ithat iwas iabandoned iat ia ivery iearly iage iwhen, iafter iher
istudies ishe icame iover ito iIndia, iand ifound ia icrying ineed ifor iwomen
idoctors iand ia iwell-equipped ihospital. iHer iwill ialso iwas iexecuted iin iIndia.
iThe ifacts ihere iare ieloquent ito ishow ithat ishe icould inot ihave ihad iany
iidea iof igoing iback ito ithe iUnited iStates, iand ithat ishe iliterally ilived iin ithe
icountry iof iher iadoption iand idied iin iit. iThe igoal iset iby iher ifor iherself,
ion ithe iexample iof iher iparents iand igrandparents, iwas ito ibe iof iservice ito
ithe idistressed iand ithe iafflicted iin iIndia. iThere icould ihave ibeen ino
iattraction ifor ione ilike iher ito ia iland iof iaffluence iand iplenty ilike ithe
iUnited iStates. iThe ifacts iare ithus iclear ito ishow ithat ithe ipresumption iin
ifavour iof ithe idomicile iof iorigin iis idisplaced, iand ithat iher idomicile iof
ichoice iwas iIndia iwhere ishe ihad iher ihome iand iwhich iwas ithe icentre iof
iher iactivities. iThe isecond ireason igiven iby ithe iTribunal iin isupport iof iits
iconclusion iis ibased ion ia ipassage iin ithe iwill iwhich iis ierroneously ireferred
ito iby iit ias icodicil. i
JUDGEMENT:
The ievents iin iher ilife iwhich iare idescribed iin idetail iin ithe ibiographies iand
iliterature iabout iher iwould igo ito ishow ithat ithe iestablishment iof ithe
ihospital iwas inot ithe ipurpose ifor iwhich ishe icame ito iIndia. iShe icame ito
iIndia ito imeet iher iparents iinitially, iafter ishe iwas iaway ifrom ithem ifor iher
ieducational ipurposes ifor ia ifairly ilong iperiod iof inot iless ithan i8 iyears.
iShe idid inot ihave iany iidea iof itaking iup imedical ieducation iand iwas ionly
iassisting iher iparents ifor ia iperiod iof inearly ifour iy i i iears iuntil ishe ifound
ithat ithere iwas ia igreat ineed ifor iwomen idoctors. iThe isocial iconditions iin
ithis ipart iof ithe icountry irequired iher ito itake iup ithis imission ias ipart iof
iher iaim iin ilife. ifrom ithe ipublications iabout iher iand iwhich iwere ispared

17
 iby icounsel ifor ithe iaccountable iperson, iit iwould iindeed ibe ian ierror ito
idraw ian iinference ithat ishe icame ito iIndia iwith ia ispecial ipurpose iof ionly
ifounding ithe iinstitution, iand ithat ishe icontinued iin iIndia iwithout iany
iintention iof imaking iit iher ipermanent ihome. i
NEHA iSAINI iVERSUS iSTATE iOF iUTTARAKHAND i& iANOTHER
iLNIND
CITATION: i2009 iUTTAR i53
FACTS: i
 The ipetitioner iis ia imember iof ian iOther iBackward iClass, icommunity,
inamely i"Saini". iThis icommunity iis inotified ias ian iOBC iin ithe iState iof
iUttarakhand, iand ithere iis ino idispute iregarding ithis ifact. i
 However, ipetitioner ihas inow imarried ia iperson ioutside iher icaste, iwho iis
iof ia ihigh icaste iwho iis ialso ia ipermanent iresident iof ia idifferent iState
ii.e. iof iPurnia, iwhich iis iin ithe iState iof iBihar. iThe itwo, ipresently
ireside iin iDelhi. i
 Petitioner ihas ia idiploma iin iRussian ilanguage ifrom iJawahar iLal iNehru
iUniversity, iDelhi iand iin ipursuance ito ian iadvertisement iissued iby ithe
iUnion iPublic iService iCommission ihas iapplied ifor ia ijob, iwhich
irequires iproficiency iin iRussian iLanguage. iSome iof ithe iposts ion iwhich
ithe iappointment ihas ito ibe imade iare ireserved ifor iOBC icandidates. i
 Now, ithe ihusband iof ithe ipetitioner iis inot ian iOBC, imoreover, ithe iState
iin iwhich ithe ihusband iof ithe ipetitioner iclaims ia i"permanent iresidence"
ihas ialso inot inotified i"Saini" ias ian iOBC icaste. i
 The ipetitioner, itherefore iapplied ifor ithis iOBC icertificate iin ithe iState iof
iUttarakhand, iwhere ishe iwas iborn, ibrought iup iand ihad idone imost iof
iher ieducation. iThis iwas idenied ito ithe ipetitioner ias ithe iTehsildar
iRoorkee i(district iHaridwar, iUttarakhand) ihas igiven ia i"noting" iin ithe
iapplication iof ithe ipetitioner ithat ithe ipetitioner ihas inow imarried iand
iresides iin ia idifferent iState iand itherefore, ihe icannot igive isuch ia
icertificate ito ithe ipetitioner. iAggrieved, ithe ipetitioner ihas ifiled ipresent
iwrit ipetition
ARGUMENTS iOF iPLAINTIFF: i

18
The ipetitioner iargued ithat ishe ibeing iborn iin ithe istate iof iUttarakhand, iher
iparents iresiding ithere, ishe icompleted imost iof iher ieducation ithere iis
ientitled ito ibe igranted ia icertificate iby ithe iUttarakhand istate. iThis iis
ibecause imost iof iher ilife iand ipermanent iresidence iis iat ithat iplace. i
ARGUMENTS iOF iDEFENDANT:
Petitioner ihas inot ionly imarried ioutside iher icaste ii.e. ito ia iperson, iwho iis
iof ihigher icaste, iwho iis inot ian iOBC, ibut ialso isince ithe ipetitioner's
ihusband ibelongs ito ianother iState ii.e. ithe iState iof iBihar, ithe iOBC
icertificate icannot ibe inow igranted ito ithe ipetitioner ifrom iRoorkee iin ithe
iState iof iUttarakhand.
RATIO iDECIDENDI:
The iRespondents irely iupon iS.15 iand iS.16 iof i(the iIndian) iSuccession iAct.
idomicile', iit imust ibe iclearly iunderstood ifirst ithat ithe imerely ibecause ithe
ipetitioner iis imarried iinto ia ihigher icaste, ishe iwill inot iseize ito ibe ia
imember iof ian iOBC. iShe ihas imarried iinto ia i"family", iand inot iinto ia
i'community', iand itherefore ishe iwill inot iloose iher iclaim ion i'reservations,
iwhich iare iavailable ito ia imember iof ian iOBC icommunity.
domicile idenotes ian iarea iwith ia iseparate iand idistinctive ilegal isystem iand
inot ijust ia iparticular iplace iin ia icountry. iThe iconcept iof iregional ior
iprovincial idomicile iis ialien ito iIndian ilegal isystem. iThe idifference iin
ipersonal ilaws iin iIndia iis inot iregional ibased ibut ireligion ior icommunity
ibased iand ia i"Muslim" ior ia i"Hindu" iwill ibe igoverned iby ia isingle isystem
iof ipersonal ilaws iwhether ihe iresides iin iTamil iNadu ior iin iUttar iPradesh.
"Now iit iis iclear ion ia ireading iof ithe iConstitution ithat iit irecognizes ionly
ione idomicile, inamely, idomicile iin iIndia. i, iArt.5 iof ithe iConstitution iis
iclear iand iexplicit ion ithis ipoint iand iit irefers ionly ito ione idomicile,
inamely, i"domicile iin ithe iterritory iof iIndia." i
JUDGEMENT:
Consequently, ithe idenial iof icaste icertificate ito ithe ipetitioner iby ithe
iauthorities iin iUttarakhand iis ibased ion ia imisconception iof ithe iterm
i'domicile'. iPetitioner iwas inever ia idomicile iof iUttarakhand, iU.P. ior iBihar,
ior ifor ithat imatter iof iany ione iprovince. iShe iwas, iand icontinues ito ibe ia
idomicile iof iIndia, ias ithere iis inothing ilike ia i"domicile iof iUttarakhand" ior
ia i"domicile iof iBihar" ior iof iany iother iState. iIt iis iemphasised, ieven iat ithe

19
icost iof irepetition, ithat iin iIndia ieach icitizen ihas ionly ione idomicile, iwhich
iis ithe i"domicile iof iIndia". iThus, ithe idenial iof icaste icertificate ito ithe
ipetitioner iby ithe iState iauthorities iin iUttarakhand ion ithe iground ithat ishe
iis ipresently ia idomicile iof ithe iState iof iBihar iand inot iof iUttarakhand iis
iclearly iwrong, iin ifact imisconceived. iThe ipetitioner ialways ihad iand
ipresently ipossesses ia idomicile, iwhich iis icalled ithe i"domicile iof iIndia".
Reliance iupon iS.15 iand iS.16 iof ithe iSuccession iAct iin ithe ipresent icontext
iis ialso imisplaced. iState iauthorities iincluding iTehsildar iRoorkee iare ihereby
idirected ito iissue ia icaste icertificate ipertaining ito i"Saini" icommunity ito ithe
ipetitioner. i

20
 VI. CONCLUSION

There ihas ibeen ia ilot iof ihue iand icry iand icomplex iconfusions iin ithe imeaning iof ithe
iterms iDomicile, iNationality iand icitizenship iwhile istudying ieither iPrivate iInternational
iLaw ior iPublic iInternational iLaw. iThe iterm inationality isignifies ithe ipolitico-legal
istatus iof ian iindividual ibelonging ito ia iparticular istate iwhile ithe iterm icitizenship iis
ioften iused iin imunicipal ilaw. iGenerally, ithe inational iwho ienjoys ifull ipolitical iand
icivil irights iis icalled ia icitizen. iDomicile, ion ithe iother ihand, iis ian iattribute iof
inationality iand idenotes ia ipersons iplace iof iresidence iand iit iis ithe irelationship
ibetween ithe iindividual iand ilocality, iwhere ithat iperson ihas ihis ipermanent ihome.
iTherefore, iit iis iquite ipossible ithat ia iperson imay ibe inational iof ione iState iwhile
idomiciled iin ianother istate iand iresolving ithe icomplexities iof ithese iterms imitigate
ialmost ihalf iof ithe iinternational iissues iby iproviding ithe iappropriate iforum ito ideal
iwith ispecific inature iof ithe iissue. iThe ilaw iof idomicile iin iIndia iis icrystal iclear iand
iis ifree ifrom iany iambiguities. iThe isame iis iimportant ifor iresolving ithe i“conflict iof
ilaws” iin iIndia. iThere iseems ito ibe ian iignorance iof ithe iconcept iin iits itrue
iperspective iin iIndia. iThere iis ian iurgent ineed ito ispread i“public iawareness” iin ithis
iregard. iParticularly iin iIndia ithere iis ilack iof iprovisions iwith iregarding ito idomicile.
iDecided icases iare ibased ion iEnglish ilaws ionly. iBut iEnglish ilaws iand iIndian ilaws
iboth iare isimilar ito ieach iother.

21
REFERENCES:
Books:

1. Cases iand imaterials ion iPrivate iInternational iLaw, iAuthor i– iJ.H.C iMorris.
2. iConflict iof iLaws, iAtul iM iSetalvad, iLexis iNexis iButterworths iWadhwa,
iNagpur, i1st iEdition,Reprint i2011, iPage i342.
3. Principles iof iConflict iof ilaw, iAuthor-George iWilfred iStumbees i, i2nd iEdition.
4. The iConflict iof iLaws, iAuthor- iDavid imc iclean, i4th iEdition.

List iof iAct:

1. Domicile iand iMatrimonial iProceeding iAct,1973

2. Hindu iMarriage iAct,1955

22