A person is said to have domicile in the country where he resides permanently without any intention of

relocating anywhere else. On the other hand, a person does not cease to have his domicile in a country
merely due to the reason of temporary abode elsewhere.

The traditional concept of domicile, however, has received criticism from reform agencies in England as
well as in other countries which follow the English common law. This is mainly due to two grounds,
which were also pointed out in 1954 (First Report of the Private International Law Committee) as
follows-

The contention relates to the revival of domicile of origin when domicile of choice is abandoned without
obtaining a new domicile of choice, and the fact that there is heavy burden of proof on the person who
asserts the change in the domicile of origin which seems to be irrational and unjustified.

The difficulty attached in proving the intention required to acquire a domicile of choice.

The concept of Domicile is crucial since it is the connecting factor traditionally used in common law
systems. There is no uniform concept of domicile and so interpretation of its meaning is largely left open
to the lex fori.

1.1) Background of Law of Domicile:

Roman law is considered to be the mother of the concept of domicile in common law. The term
domicilium is derived from domum colere, to foster or inhabit the home. Domicile is not any place of
residence but a place of habitual residence. In the ancient times, the ordinary man's Diocese had
authority over him in the Consistory Court in England and a man's domicile in a Diocese was established
by his habitual residence. The Bishop of the Diocese of the domicile had ecclesiastical jurisdiction and in
England this included probate and matrimonial jurisdiction even before the Matrimonial Causes Act,
1857 and the Court of Probate Act, 1857. English statutes dealing with marriage characterise the place
where a man dwells, of his dwelling place; and domicilium is a habitation or a dwelling.

1.2) Importance of Domicile:

· Domicile acts as a connecting factor for various legal systems.

· Domicile can be used as a jurisdictional link which is a pre-requisite for assumption of jurisdiction by
the forum or for recognition and assumption of a foreign court's jurisdiction.

· Domicile determines an individual's right to vote, his right to hold public office, his entitlement to
support in respect of various needs such as ill-health or unemployment and his liability to various forms
of taxation.

· There is no person without a domicile because it is necessary to connect a person with some legal
system to regulate his legal relationships.
PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN LAW OF DOMICILE

The basic aim of the law of domicile is to associate or assign an individual with a specific or
particular set or system of laws to which the individual most relates to. Under both the Private
International Law System and the Indian Law System, there are four basic principles which
govern the law of domicile in any country.8 They are:

1. No person or an individual can exist or stay without a domicile

It is a mandatory principle and rule that every person or individual should have a domicile. It is
a well-established rule which cannot be changed under any circumstances. The reason behind
the establishment of this principle is that every individual should have a connection to a specific
system of law so that his/her actions can be regulated by categorising it or placing the actions
into a set of laws. An individual has a freedom to change his/her domicile. But the vice
versa.i.e., freedom to have no domicile is not available to any person living in the world forum.
Initially the domicile of a person or an individual is determined by his/her birth. An individual
acquires the domicile of his/her father if it's a legitimate child but acquires the domicile of
his/her mother if it's an illegitimate child.

2. No person can simultaneously have two domiciles

It is one of the basic principles of domicile that since no individual can stay or exit without a
domicile, no individual can have two domiciles at the same time. The reason behind this
principle of law of domicile is that domicile associates an individual to a specific set of law. If a
person or an individual is allowed to have one or more domiciles, then the basic aim and
purpose of having a domicile to regulate the actions of an individual would be compromised
and frustrated. The Indian Constitution only recognises one domicile for one person.9

3. The basic aim of domicile is to associate an individual with a territorial system of law
Domicile has reference to the system of law by which a person is governed, and when we
speak of the domicile of a country, we assume that the same system of law prevails all over
that country.10 But it might well happen that the laws relating to succession and marriage might
not be the same all over the country, and that different areas in the state might have different
laws in respect of these matters. In that case, each area having a distinct set of laws would
itself be regarded as a country for the purpose of domicile.

4. The presumption is always made in the favour that the existing domicile always
continues
This fourth principle says that until or unless it is not proved that a person has got a new
domicile it will be presumed he has the old domicile and the burden of proving will lie on that
party who state that the person has changed the domicile but few jurists argue that the burden
of proof is subject to change depending on the kind of the domicile and “the burden of proof is
consider fragile when the domicile of question is domicile of dependence and very strong when
the kind of domicile is of origin"
DOMICILE, NATIONALITY AND RESIDENCE

Distinction between Domicile and Nationality

The term "Nationality" in general terms means a specific status of membership which is
conferred on an individual by a nation state. Fenwick defines it as a bond which unites a person
to a given state which constitutes his membership in the particular state, which gives him a
claim to the protection of that state and which subjects him to the obligation created by the
laws of that state.

Why is Nationality important?

A nationality also confers certain rights upon an individual
which he/she can enjoy internationally. Some of the benefits of having a nationality are: loyalty
towards a specific nation, the nation can choose not to extradite its own nationals in case of
any discrepancy, you can determine the enemy character of an individual through a state, the
state has jurisdictions over all its nationals, etc. Nationality to a particular state can be acquired
by following means:

• By birth - This kind of nationality is conferred upon the individual or the person by way
of his/her birth in that particular nation.
• By descent - This kind of nationality is conferred upon an individual by form of descent
from one of its own nationals.
• By the process of naturalisation - This kind of nationality can be conferred upon the
individual or the person by way of adoption, marriage, government job appointment,
etc.
• By way of subjugation - A person may acquire nationality through subjugation after the
conquest. When the part of a state is subjugated by another state the inhabitants of that
state become the nationals of the later state.14
• By way of registration of resumption - This kind of nationality is conferred when an
individual is born as a natural subject of the state but because of some cause lost his/her
nationality. They can regain their nationality by fulfilling certain conditions again.
Similarly, loss of nationality can occur due to the following reasons:
• By way of renunciation - If an individual acquires nationality of more than one state or
nation, then he/she has to renounce the nationality of state.
• By way deprivation - It is a well-established rule that if an individual acquires a
government job in another nation without informing the state, he or she is a national of,
then the former state might deprive the person or individual of their nationality to that
state.
• By way of long residence in another state - It is a well said rule which some of the states
follow that if an individual resides in another state for a very long period of time, he or
she might lose the nationality to the former state.

Domicile is as we know it a relationship between a person and his or her place of residence
which is also deemed as a permanent home. Domicile may still continue even if the individual
has left his or her home. Nationality on the other hand is a relationship between an individual
and a country (to which a person owes his allegiance to Nationality normally confers some
protection of the individual by the state and some obligations on the individual towards the
state.

Distinction between Domicile and Residence

Domicile is a person’s permanent place of dwelling and it is a legal relationship between a
person and a locality. It may or may not be of same meaning as the term ‘residence’. Domicile
involves intent of an individual whereas, residence is something objective. Domicile basically
consists of or is based upon two major factors.i.e., intention of living and residence. Residence
is more of a temporary nature whereas domicile is more of a permanent nature. A person or an
individual can have only one domicile whereas he/she can have a lot of residences.
2) Kinds of Domicile:

There are three different classes of domicile namely-

· Domicile of Origin,

· Domicile of Choice, and

· Domicile of Dependence

2.1) Domicile of Origin:

By operation of law, every person acquires a domicile of origin at birth which can never be extinguished.
Even if a person obtains a new domicile via choice or by dependence, the domicile of origin is never
completely lost; it merely lies dormant in the background and revives itself if gaps in acquiring and losing
domicile emerge.

The law of domicile has developed predominantly through common law rules. In English law, domicile of
origin was ascribed according to the status of a child as legitimate or illegitimate in the following way-

· A legitimate child takes the fathers domicile at birth to be its domicile of origin, and

· An illegitimate (or posthumous) child takes the mothers domicile.

2.1.1) Development- Domicile of Origin:

The Domicile of origin is a domicile which is ascribed to a person when he/she is born. Lord Westbury
remarked in the leading case of Udny v Udny[3], "That no man shall be without a domicile, and to secure
this result the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the domicile of his father, if the
child be legitimate, and the domicile of the mother if illegitimate."

Even if a child is born posthumously or if an illegitimate child is later legitimated, in both the scenarios,
the domicile of origin will remain the same as that of the mother. An adopted child probably acquires
the domicile of origin of the adoptive parents as such a child is treated as if born in lawful wedlock. The
domicile of origin is conferred on the basis of origin. There are exceptional cases like Re McKenzie[4],
where domicile of origin of a child is determined on the basis of the place where he was found and not
on the basis of his parents' domicile.

The children under 16 and mentally disable person acquire a domicile of dependence which changes
with the change of their guardian. In later life, the child can acquire a domicile of choice after becoming
independent and can also abandon it without acquiring a new one. At that stage the domicile of origin
will revive.
A person who has never even visited a particular country can have the domicile of origin of that place. In
Grant v Grant[5] a child was born in India but his domicile of origin was held to be English following his
father's domicile of origin. It illustrates that domicile of origin is the hardest to lose among all the three
types of domiciles.

2.1.2) Tenacity and Revival of Domicile of Origin under English Law:

The rules of domicile of origin quite satisfactory reflect the social factors. One acquires it at the time of
his birth and because of its strong tenacity it is hard to lose and it automatically revives once domicile of
choice is extinguished. It has proven to be more tenacious in a way that even if a person leaves his
country of origin with an intention never to return back, his domicile of origin survives until he has
acquired a domicile of choice.

Case Law:

The English courts have stressed on the tenacious character of domicile of origin since centuries which
can be seen in plethora of cases laws-

· In Bell v Kennedy[6], one Bell had a Jamaican domicile of origin but after leaving Jamaica, he was
uncertain to make a decision as to whether he should settle in Scotland or England. Therefore, the
House of Lords held that he had not lost his Jamaican domicile of origin.

· In Ramsay v Liverpool Royal Infirmary[7], the House of Lords unanimously held the view that a man of
Scottish origin who spent thirty six years of his life in Liverpool had not acquired the domicile of choice
of England and retained his Scottish domicile of origin despite the fact that he was proud to be called as
a Glasgow man, who refused to return to Scotland on several occasions, even on the death of his
mother and also arranged his burial in Liverpool. This proposition is due to the observation of the House
of Lords; the honorable court observed that his prolonged residence did not show his intention to reside
in England permanently.

· In IRC v Bullock[8], a man with a Canadian domicile of origin lived in England for forty years and also
married an English woman, had not acquired an English domicile of choice. The Court of Appeal held
that his domicile of origin sustained because he had the intention to go back to Nova Soctia (Canada) if
his wife predeceased him.

2.1.3) Law of Domicile and Criticism:

The law of domicile is generally criticised for its two aspects-

· Tenacity of domicile of origin, and

· Its principle of revival

Among all the three types of domiciles, this is only the domicile of origin which has been subjected to
plethora of law reform proposals since the 1950's. In 1950, Lord Chancellor asked the Private
International Committee for the desirable amendments in the law of domicile. The Committee published
its report in 1954, in which it criticised the domicile of origin due to attaching unnecessary importance to
its rule of automatic revival on abandoning the domicile of choice without the acquisition of new one.
These proposals were again taken up twice to the parliament in the form of Domicile Bills of 1958 and
1959.

But it failed to become the law because if it was legislated then many American businessmen living in
United Kingdom would have become prone to double taxation. This would have discouraged the foreign
businessmen to invest in England and would have affected the economy of the country. Proposals for
the reform of law of domicile and in particular the abandonment of the revival rule of the domicile of
origin continued till the mid 1980's. Law Commission Working Paper 88 examined the desirability of
substitution of domicile with a different connecting factor. It proposed the possibility of replacing
domicile by the concept of habitual residence or nationality. Nevertheless, it was concluded that
domicile should continued to be used as a connecting factor.

In 1987, the Law Commission compiled its report after receiving the comments and views on the 1985
report. This proposal was an important step towards the process of improving effectiveness and fairness
of the English rules of the domicile of origin. If it was adopted, it would have abolished many difficulties
which propositus has to face since it eradicated the tenacity and revival of domicile of origin and also it
cleared that the standard to prove the change of the domicile of origin is that of a civil standard.

2.1.4) Pros of Concept of Tenacity & Revival of Domicile of Origin:

a) Capable of dealing with absurd situations:

Revival rule of domicile of origin can deal with several odd situations. For instance, a family with English
domicile of origin moves to India with an intention to settle there permanently, but after sometime they
decided to shift from India to France for few years with an intention never to go back to India.
Therefore, in such a situation family has not acquired a new domicile of choice of France unless they
spend appreciable period of time there. In such circumstances, their English domicile of origin will revive
which will fulfill its purpose in this case. But let's consider that domicile of choice will continued until
they have acquired a new one then if any mishap happens with them on their way to France in the
above example, the governing law will be that of India where they never wanted to set foot again. This
seems to be a strange situation where legal system of a place will apply which a person has willingly
abandoned. Here the concept of revival of domicile of origin seems to be more logical solution to deal
with these absurd and unique situations.

b) Profound Concept:

Domicile of origin is a deep and thorough concept which helps the courts to establish a balanced and
proper decision. It urges the court to see the whole life of propositus in order to determine if his
domicile of origin has been displaced or not.

In Cyganik v Agulian[9], according to Mummery LJ:

"Positioned at the date of death...the court must look back at the whole of the deceased's life, at what
he had done with his life, at what life had done to him and what were his inferred intentions in order to
decide whether he had acquired a domicile of choice in England by the date of his death."

c) Determination of Personal Law:

Domicile of origin provides personal law for resolving the legal issues of a person. Due to its consistency
and the fact that it can never be abandoned completely, therefore, its revival provides a personal law
where domicile of choice or dependence is abolished. Harrison v Harrison[10] and Bell v Kennedy[11]
are the valid examples where in the former case, domicile of origin revived when domicile of
dependence was abandoned and in the latter case, domicile of origin revived when domicile of choice
was abandoned.

2.1.5) Demerits of Tenacity and Revival Principle of Domicile of Origin:

a) Superfluous Concept:

The principle of revival of domicile of origin seems to be unnecessary according to the proposals of the
Law Commission in their 1987 Report. This report proposed that the domicile of origin should be
abolished and person's domicile at birth should be determined by the country with which he has most
close connections or he would be considered to have the domicile of the parents with whom he is
residing at that time.

b) Unsatisfactory Principle:

According to the principles observed in the leading case of Udny v Udny[12], a legitimate child would
take the domicile of father, an illegitimate child and a posthumous child would take the domicile of the
mother. But these rules are quite unsatisfactory in certain circumstances-

· Unless a domicile has been established, the legitimacy of a child cannot be determined while on the
other hand, a domicile cannot be established unless legitimacy of a child is ascertained. Consequently it
is difficult to resolve this absurd two-way debate in a rational manner. The only way to resolve it might
be to consider the child as legitimate if he is regarded so by the law of either of his/her parent's
domicile.

· After the enactment of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973, there is no logical basis
for the rule that a legitimate child follows the domicile of the father. Since domicile of a married woman
is no longer dependent on her husband. Therefore, it's not logical that if the parents are living apart, the
child will first take the domicile of origin of father then domicile of dependence of the parent with
whom he is living.

c) Leads to Bizarre Results:

In Grant v Grant[13], A, with an English domicile of origin, went to France where he had a legitimate son
B. B, while living in France had a legitimate son, C, who also had a legitimate son named D while residing
in France. A, B and C intended to go back to England at the age of sixty-five for retirement but they all
died in France before reaching that age. Despite the fact that D never visited England, it was held that
D's domicile of origin was English. It is obvious from the facts of the case that even the propositus is not
physically present in his country of origin, even then he is deemed to be domiciled there, which is a
strong drawback of domicile of origin due to creation of bizarre results.

2.2) Domicile of Choice:

Any person not legally dependent on another (sui juris) may acquire for himself/herself a domicile of
choice at any time by means of physical residence in a place, other than that of domicile of origin, and
intention to reside there for the foreseeable future. However, anyone not sui juris will rely on derivative
domicile which is based on the domicile of those on whom they are legally dependent, this includes
children and some persons mentally incapax. (The general rule for mentally incapacitated persons is that
they retain the domicile they had before becoming incapacitated).

There must be a freedom of choice of residence and not prescribed or dictated by any external necessity
such as the duties of office, the demand of creditors or the relief from illness; and it must be residence
fixed not for a limited period or particular purpose.

2.2.1) Capacity of acquiring domicile of choice

The capacity to acquire a domicile of choice is determined by the law of his existing domicile. Under
English law, before the coming into force of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973, a
minor, a lunatic and a married woman had no capacity to acquire a domicile of choice.

2.2.2) Acquisition of a Domicile of Choice

The two requisites for a fresh domicile are:

a) Residence

b) Intention

· Residence

The requirement of residence in a country for the purposes of the law of domicile is physical presence in
that country as an inhabitant of it. Residence is regarded as being a question of fact. Older cases
adopted a presumption in favour of domicile that grew in strength with the length of the residence and
was hard to be rebutted. However, in more recent cases less weight has been attached to the length of
residence, and have taken the view that, although a material consideration, it is rarely decisive.
Whatever weight is given to the length of residence it is undeniable that time is not the sole criterion of
domicile.

In the English case Jopp v. Wood[14], 25 years residence in India and in the Indian case S.P. Ghosh v.
Deputy Collector[15], 10 years residence in England was not considered enough.
In Michael Anthony Rodrigues v. State of Bombay[16], one Michael born in 1918 in Goa to the parents
having Goan nationality relocated to Bombay in 1927 where his father had established a tailoring
business for the last forty years. Since then Michael never went back to Goa. He was educated in
Bombay and in 1936 joined his fathers business. In 1946, during the war, he joined the Royal Indian
Armed Forces. After his discharge from the Army he gave Bombay as his permanent address. Thereafter,
he lived in Bombay and in 1948 he reverted back to his fathers business. His name was also entered in
the municipal rolls as a voter. On these facts, the Bombay High Court held that he had acquired a
domicile of choice in Bombay and had abandoned his Goan domicile of origin.

Conversely, brevity of residence is no obstacle to the acquisition of a domicile if the necessary intention
exists. For instance if a person leaves the place of his present domicile with a view to settle in another
country, then the moment he sets foot in that country he acquires a domicile there. In White v.
Tennant[17], after abandoning his home in state X, a man took his family to a home in state Z, about a
mile from state X After depositing his belongings there, he returned to State X with a view to spend the
night with a relative. He fell ill and died on that very night. It was held that he was domiciled in state Z.

· Habitual Residence

There are circumstances where it is possible for a person to be resident in several countries at the same
time. In these circumstances of dual or multiple residences a domicile of choice can only be acquired if
this can be shown to be the chief or habitual residence. This was observed in Plummer v. IRC[18], the
taxpayer had an English domicile of origin. She spent the majority of each year in England, where she
was getting her education. However, she spent more than three months of each year in Guernsey, which
had become her family home. Hoffman J held that, despite the taxpayers intention of residence in
England, her domicile of origin, she could acquire a domicile of choice in Guernsey if she could show that
this was her chief residence. This she was unable to do. She had not yet settled in Guernsey. Accordingly
she retained her English domicile.

· Intention to reside permanently

The acquisition of a domicile of choice requires an intention by the propositus to remain permanently in
the territory in which he/she resides. The word permanent according to the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary means lasting or designed to last indefinitely without change, and this indeed is the definition
that most of the judges have recognised when required to consider the nature of the intention
necessary for a change of domicile. In Udny v.Udny[19], Lord Westbury described the intention as being
one to reside for an unlimited time. A more modern statement to the same effect is that of Baroness
Hale who referred to an intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. The essence, therefore, of these
and many other similar statements is that the intended residence must not be for a limited period.

It is also clear that a conditional intention would not suffice. In Cramer v. Cramer[20], a woman with a
French domicile of origin who came to England intending to remain here and marry an Englishman, who
was already married, did not acquire an English domicile of choice. Her intention to remain was
conditional on both herself and her proposed husband obtaining divorce and then on their relationship
continuing in future.

In cases where the termination of residence is dependent on the occurrence of a contingency this will
not prevent the acquisition of domicile unless the contingency is itself unambiguous and realistic.

In Re Fulds Estate[21], Scarman J. observed that if a man intends to return to the land of his birth upon a
clearly foreseen and reasonably anticipated contingency, e.g. the end of his job, the intention required
by law is lacking; but if he has in mind only a vague possibility, such as making a fortune, such a state of
mind is consistent with the intention required by law.

· Time at which intention is relevant

There must be a present intention of permanent residence means the person at the relevant time
possess the requisite intention. The relevant time varies with the nature of the inquiry which may be
past or present.

For instance, the inquiry relates to the domicile of a deceased person Z, it must be ascertained whether
at some period in his life he had formed and retained a fixed and settled intention of residence in a
given country. Once this fact is established, evidence of his subsequent fluctuations of opinion as to
whether he would or would not move elsewhere will be ignored. If, on the other hand, the essential
validity of a proposed marriage depends on the law of Zs domicile and if the identity of this law is in
doubt, what must be examined is his immediate intention. In Mark v. Mark[22], the intention must be
bona fide in the sense of being genuine and not pretended for some other purpose, such as getting a
divorce to which one would not be entitled by the law of the true domicile.

· Evidence of intention

The question of requisite intention is one of fact. It is impossible to lay down any positive rule with
respect to the evidence necessary to prove the requisite intention. All that one can say is that every
conceivable event and incident in a mans life is a relevant and an admissible indication of his state of
mind. Every action be it said and done during a persons life should be considered, taking account of
things said and done after & before the time when it is alleged that the chosen domicile has been
acquired. Nothing must be overlooked that might possibly show the place which he regarded as his
permanent home at the relevant time.

This view has been taken by Indian courts too like in the case- Kedar Pande v. Narayan Bikram Shah[23],
the question before the Supreme Court was whether Narayan Bikram Shah had been domiciled in India
in 1949. Narayans father was domiciled in Nepal, therefore, he had his domicile of origin there. Narayan
Shah was born in Benaras (India), received his education from 1934 to 1938 in India. After 1938 he lived
in Ram Nagar (India) and continued to live there after the death of his father his father, Ram Raja, had
built a palace in Ram Nagar in 1938-41. Subsequently, Narayan Shah also built a mansion there. In 1982,
there was a partition suit between Narayan Shah and his brother. During the suit and subsequently also
he continued to manage properties. After partition, he and his wife acquired immovable property,
including land in Patna and several other places. On March 23, 1949 he was issued an Indian passport in
which he described himself as an Indian citizen and domicile and resident of Ram Nagar. He went to
Nepal only once when he was 10 or 12 years old. After 1953 he never went to Nepal. He had married an
Indian girl. All his children were educated in India. Before the establishment of the Gram Panchayat he
was the president of the Union Board. His name was entered into the voters list of Ram Nagar
constituency. In 1957 general elections he contested from the Ram Nagar constituency. The Supreme
Court held that taking into account all the events and circumstances of Narayan Shahs life, it was clearly
established that even before 1949, Narayan Shah had acquired a domicile of choice in India.

In such cases one must draw the inference that they had left their country for good and, therefore, a
presumption arises in their favour that they had acquired a domicile of choice in the country of their
refuge; although their departure is not voluntary, yet it cant be said that they intended to settle there
temporarily. In Re Martin, Loustalan v. Loustalan[24] , Lindley LJ observed the same. All these inferences
equally apply to a fugitive who runs away from his civil liability.

2.2.3) Abandonment of Domicile of Choice

When both conditions- factum and animus cease to exist, the domicile of choice is abandoned. Mere
intention to abandon or mere residence in another country is not enough for abandonment of domicile
of choice. Thus, the domicile of choice is abandoned when a person gives up residing in the country of
the domicile of choice and he has no intention to reside there indefinitely. The case of the Goods of
Raffene[27]l is a good illustration of the operation of these factors. One Madame Raffenel, widow of a
French naval officer, had her domicile of origin in England and domicile of choice in France. She
embarked at Calais on a cross- channel streamer, with the intention of leaving France for good. She was
taken ill before the streamer could sail and had to spend several months in Calais, where she died. The
court held that she died domiciled in France, as at the date of her death she had not abandoned her
French domicile, though she had an intention to do so. However, had she sailed off the French territorial
waters, her English domicile of origin would have revived.

2.3) Domicile of dependency

By operation of law the domicile of certain persons depend on the domicile of others, since these
persons are incapable of choosing their own domicile, like-
· Lunatics

· Married Women

It was proposed that a child should have a 'Dependent Domicile' of their parents but where the tie with
the parents was weakened, he would have an independent domicile.

Three rules were suggested for ascertaining the domicile of children as follows-

· Firstly, if the child lives with both parents, his domicile would be the same as that of the parents and it
will change with the change of parents' domicile. But if domicile of both parents is not same then the
child will take the domicile of the mother. · Secondly, if the child is living with single parent, he will have
the domicile of that parent and it will change accordingly.· Thirdly, the child should be domiciled in a
country with which he is more closely connected.

If the domicile of father (or, where appropriate, mother) changed while a person is under the age of 16,
then they acquire a domicile of dependency based on father's (or mother's) new domicile. The rules are
more complicated where parents separate or die while their children are under 16.

A woman who married before 1 January 1974, have her husband's domicile (as a domicile of
dependency). On 1 January 1974 the rules changed, so that women who married on or after that date
no longer take their husband's domicile; they retain their own domicile of origin and can acquire their
own domicile of choice. Women who were married before that date retained their husband's domicile
as at that date, but this is treated as a domicile of choice, not dependency.

If a person acquired a domicile of dependency while under the age of 16 (for example, because the
parents emigrated permanently to a new country, with no intention ever to return to the old country)
that persons domicile of dependency will continue until that person choose to leave that country. On
departure, the domicile of origin will revive until you acquire a new domicile of choice.