Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SUBMITTED BY;
Shilpi Rana
ROLL NO. 119
B.A.LL.B (Hons.)VIII- Semester
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would also like to thank my family, without their love and support this
project would not have completed. Last but not the least; I would like to thank
my friends who were very helpful throughout the completion of the project.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Cases4
1. Introduction.. 5
2. Concept of domicile. 6
Types of domicile
Test of domicile.
3. Concept of residence 12
Types of residence
Test of residence
6. Conclusion. 18
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY.19
3
TABLE OF CASES
4
1. INTRODUCTION
Domicile (the lexdomicilii) has a dominating role in family and matrimonial property law
and a role in other areas such as capacity of persons to make contracts. It plays a part also
in the law of taxation. Domicile cannot be defined with precision Whicker v Hume1defined
domicile as permanent home. However, you will find many reported cases where a person
has lived in a place for 30 or 40 years and has not been held to have acquired a domicile
there. After reading the cases listed above you may conclude that the persons in question
(such a person is often called the propositus) had permanent homes in England, but in none
In most systems of the conflict of laws the notion of belonging to a country in some
governs the questions concerning personal and proprietarily relationship between the
family. Place of birth is an adequate criterion by which to identify personal law. In England
Domicile is easier to illustrate than to define. By domicile, we mean permanent home. The
notion of home, or of permanent home takes colour from different facts. An Englishwoman
aged 70 years, a widow after living all her life in Somerset goes to new Zealand to live with
her married daughter, although that move may be, impractical terms, irreversible, is she not
likely to regard England as her homeland? In fact, domicile cannot be equated with home,
because as we shall see a person may be domiciled in a country which is not or never has
been his home; a person may have homes in different countries but can have a domicile
1
[1858] 7 HLC 124, 160
5
only one at a time; he may be homeless, but he may have domicile. 2 Indeed there is a wide
gulf between the popular conception of permanent home and the legal concept of domicile.
This paper tries to analyse the concept of Domicile and Residence and the author endeavors
The most basic link between an individual and a country is mere physical presence, even if
it be for a very short period of span. Residence is actually and basically a question of
fact; in some contexts it means very little than the physical presence. But it does not mean
something more, for a person passing through a country as a traveler in not resident there. 3
If someone becomes resident in the country, the link may remain during the brief periods of
absence. It is difficult to be more specific, for a great deal depends upon the context in
which the term residence is used. In a case, held, that university student was resident in
their university town for electoral registration purposes.4In simple words it can be said that
the term residence means different things for different legal purposes. It may be that a
person will relatively easily be held resident in a country if the issue is one of that
jurisdiction of that countrys court, but less if the context is one of the residence during the
fiscal year.
2. CONCEPT OF DOMICILE
Domicile connects a person with the law of a country5. The object of determining a
persons domicile is to connect that person with some legal system for some legal purposes.
To establish such connection it is sufficient to prove the domicile of that country in the
sense of the conflict of laws e.g. England, Scotland, or New York. It is not necessary in
which part of the country he is domiciled. A person who emigrates e.g. to the UK with the
2
A. G. Gupte, Law of Marriage and Divorce, 1st edition, (2007), p. 1049
3
Matalon v. Matalon(1952), p. 233
4
Fox v. Stirk (1970) 2 Q.B. 468
5
Bell v Kennedy [1868].Domicile is an idea of law can be found in this case.
6
intention of settling in England or Scotland, only acquires a new domicile by deciding in
There are four fundamental principles to the law of domicile. The principles of
No person can be without a domicile. This principle springs from the particular
necessity of connecting every person with some system of law by which a number
No person can at the same time for the same purposes have more than one domicile.
has been acquired. Hence the burden of proving a change of domicile lies on those
who assert it. The change of a domicile of origin must be proved beyond reasonable
probabilities.
For the purpose of the rule of conflict of laws, domicile means domicile in the
In Mitchell v. U.S., the Supreme Court appeared to struggle with the definition of domicile:
proof of an intention to remain there for an unlimited time . . . By the term domicile, in its
ordinary acceptation, is meant the place where a person lives and has his home. The place
where a person lives is taken to be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary.7
6
Ibid.
7
88 U.S. 350, 352 (1874)
7
The Mitchell Courts need to define and then redefine domicile appears to be a sign of
discomfort with the concept. Each definition is cited to a source (mostly English cases), but
the Court does not expressly settle on a definition of domicile. It is too wide a formulation
to say that in an English court, domicile means domicile in the English sense.8
Types of Domicile:
difficult to prove it has been abandoned. If a person leaves the country of his domicile
domicile of origin. This is the domicile of his father at the time of his birth if he is
legitimate. It is the domicile of his mother if he is illegitimate or if his father dies before
he is born. Foundlings have a domicile of origin in the country in which they are found.
A domicile of origin may be changed as a result ofadoption, but not otherwise. A person
3. the individual who has primary parental responsibility rights if not a parent; or
4. The country in which the child was found if a foundling. Under the law of
the United States, where a person's place of birth is unknown, their domicile of
8
Irwin v. Irwin (2001) 1 F.L.R178, 189, per Cazalet J.
9
First Restatement of Conflicts, 14(3)
8
The domicile of origin is absolute and will be the base reference point throughout a
person's life. Thus, if a person acquires a domicile of choice but later abandons it, the
domicile of origin will automatically revive. During the minority, the child has domicile of
be very easily changed by having the required intention and residence. A person who
has reached the age of majority, is free to choose a new domicile. This choice is effective
2. the animus semper manendi, i.e. enters a new state with the intent to make it their
permanent home.
The latter is very difficult to prove because most people retain affection for their
previous state and think that they may one day return. Even if a domicile of choice is
found to have arisen, it will be lost as soon as either the factum or the animus is lost.
Domicile of dependency: The domicile of a dependent person is the same as, and
changeswith, the domicile of the person on whom he or she is, as regards domicile, legally
dependent. Here in the project, the dependents covered are the married women and
children.
ChildrenThe domicile of a child less than 16 years in English law and 18 years in
9
if he is illegitimate or his father is dead it is that of his mother
parents.
Married women
Until 1 January 1974 a married woman (even if a minor) was dependent for the purposes of
the law of domicile upon her husband. So it was the same as, and changed with, the
domicile of her husband. This applied even where they were living apart and had done so
for many years. The domicile of a married woman is now ascertained by reference to the
same factors as in the case of any other individual capable of having an independent
domicile10
Test of Domicile
limited period or a particular purpose. If the person will leave upon the occurrence of a
contingency, this possibility will be ignored if the contingency is vague and indefinite (e.g.
winning the lottery), but if it is clearly foreseen and reasonably anticipated (e.g. coming to
domicile of choice in that country. Most disputes as to domicile turn on the question of
whether the necessary intention accompanied the residence. A court has said: There is no
act, no circumstance in a mans life, however trivial it may be in itself, which ought to be
10
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 s.1 (1)).
10
left out of consideration in trying the question whether there was an intention to change the
domicile. A trivial act might possibly be of more weight with regard to determining this
question than an act which was of more importance to a man in his lifetime11
Cheshire and North12 (p.143) say:Nothing must be neglected that can possibly indicate the
bent of the residents mind. His aspirations, whims, amours, prejudices, health, religion,
financial expectations
A person whose domicile is in question may testify as to his intention, but courts view the
evidence of an interested party with suspicion. Declarations of intention made out of court
may be given in evidence by way of exception to the hearsay rule. It has been said that to
acquire a domicile of choice there must be: a residence freely chosen, and not prescribed or
dictated by any external necessity, such as the duties of office, the demands of creditors or
the relief from illness13. This can be seen by examining certain categories of persons.
Domicile of choice is a question of fact, not of law, requiring the combination and
coincidence of residence in a country and a bona fide intention to make a home in that
country permanently or indefinitely. A person can be resident in a place where she has no
right to be, and could form an intention to remain in a place despite considerable
11
Drevonv Drevon[1864] 34 L J Ch 129, 133.
12
Cheshire and Norths Private International Law, 13th edition, (1999), p.152
13
Udnyv Udny[1869] LR 1 Sc&Div 441, 458
11
3. CONCEPT OF RESIDENCE
Residence means the place where one actually lives, as distinguished from a domicile.
long duration but there had been decisions where it was held that even a part of a day was
settle.
The term residence is often found in the Hague Conventions and often makes its way into
English law through this route. The Hague Conventions do not define habitual residence.
The Court of Appeal has said that it is primarily a question of fact to be decided by
Types of Residence:
Habitual residence- to acquire a habitual residence, a person must take up lawful residence
in the country and therefore a period which shows that the residence has become habitual.
The length of the period is not fixed.A place of settled dwelling which constitutes a person's
"If he or she leaves ... with a settled intention not to return ... but to take up residence in
country B instead, such a person cannot, however, become habitually resident in a single
day. An appreciable period of time and a settled intention will be necessary to enable him or
14
SumathiAmmal v. D. Paul, AIR 1936 Madras 324 (FB)
15
[1982] Ch 314, 318-319.
16
Re M [1993] 1 FLR 495.
17
(1947) 2 All ER 677
12
In other words, it may take time to establish a habitual residence, but terminating only takes
a departure with intent to relocate permanently. In some cases, a new habitual residence
could be established in as little as one month. The term is a pivotal part of the Hague
Convention on International Child Abduction which, at Article 4, uses the term but does not
define it, as follows: "The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually
resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights.
The Convention shall cease to apply where the child attains the age of sixteen years."
has adopted voluntarily and for the settled purposes, as part of the regular order of his life
for the time being, whether of long or short duration. Its established meaning is that the
claimant is Ordinarily residing in the United Kingdom ( UK) (apart from temporary or
occasional absences) And Their residence here has been adopted voluntarily for settled
purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being.
To decide whether the claimant has their settled home in the UK, you must consider all the
relevant facts. Refer to People coming to the UK and People leaving the UK below18.
A claimant can be ordinarily resident in more than one country. If a claimant stated they
have a home in another country this does not mean they cannot be ordinarily resident in the
UK.A claimant who lives in the UK year after year should be treated as being ordinarily
resident here.
Test of Residence:
So, the test to be applied in this context will again be that of the persons abode in
particular purposes as part of the regular order of the life for the time being. In Breuning v.
18
Dicey and Morris: Private International Law, Sweet and Maxwell, New York
13
Beuning, it was held that the continued presence in England of someone who had no choice
but to remain in England for the medical purposes did not constitute habitual residence.
A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in T. J. Poonen v. Rathi Varghese19 after
considering various decisions gave thefollowing propositions and laid down few test as to
(1) To constitute residence it is not necessary that the party orparties must have his or
(2) To constitute residence the stay need not be permanent; itcan be temporary, so long as
(3) Residence will not take in a casual stay in, or flying visit toa particular place; a mere
(4) Residence connotes something more than stay; it impliessome intention to remain at a
permanent or temporary.
(6) The expression last resided also means the place where the person had his last abode
(7) Where there has been residence together of a more permanent character, and a casual or
brief residence together, Courts have taken the view that it is only the former that can be
19
AIR 1967 Kerala 1 (FB)
14
(8) The question as to whether a particular person has chosen to make a particular place his
Domicile of a person is his permanent home. No person can be without a domicile and no
person may have more than one operative domicile. National boundaries do not constitute a
hindrance in ones choice of domicile. This implies that a person may be national of one
country, but his domicile may be another country. Domicile denotes the connection of a
person with a territorial system of law. The importance of domicile lies in the fact that a
persons family matters, like marriage and divorce, are generally determined by the law of
the place of his domicile, besides his religion. The domicile of a married woman is the
There are two main classes of domicile: domicile of origin and domicile of choice.
of choice is acquired by a person of full age in substitution for that which he at present
possesses. There are two requisites for acquisition of a fresh domicile: residence and
intention. It must be proved that the person in question established his residence in a
certain country with the intention of remaining there permanently. These two elements of
residence and intention must concur, but this is not to say that there need be unity of time in
their concurrence. The intention may either precede or succeed the establishment of the
residence.
20
Amendment of Section 2 of Divorce Act 1869 Enabling Non-domiciled Estranged Christian Wives to seek
Divorce, June 2009.
15
Domicile generally constitutes the basis of jurisdiction of courts for entertaining petitions
for divorce. Although the matrimonial law in India differs from community to community,
the jurisdictional rules differ only slightly.21 The time at which domicile is to be determined
is the time when proceedings are commenced22 In England, the Domicile and Matrimonial
Proceedings Act 1973 changed the position of the jurisdictional rule in regard to petitions
for divorce and now the English courts have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for divorce
if either of the parties to the marriage is domiciled in England on the date when
proceedings are commenced, as now after 1st January 1974 a married woman can have her
The said Act not only provides for abolition of wifes dependent domicile, but also adopts
habitual residence as the second basis of jurisdiction: if either party to the marriage was
habitually resident in England throughout the period of one year ending on the date when
the proceedings are commenced, the English courts have jurisdiction to entertain a petition
for divorce.
In India, although there has not been enacted any law for abolition of wifes dependent
domicile, the jurisdictional rule in regard to petitions for divorce (being linked with
domicile of the parties) has been relaxed in various ways in certain matrimonial
legislations. For example, under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage
Act 1954, a petition for divorce may be filed by a wife at the place where she is residing on
the date of the presentation of the petition, videthe Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 2003.
Sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Special Marriage Act 1954 even before the said 2003
Act provided that a petition for divorce by a wife could be filed here if she had been
21
ParasDiwan, Private International Law, 4th edition, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi (1998), p. 284
22
Leon v. Leon, [1966] 3 All E R 820
16
ordinarily resident in India for a period of three years immediately preceding the
The above amendment brought about by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 2003 was
prompted by the recommendations of the Law Commission of India23 and the National
Commission for Women. The Law Commission had expressed the view that such an
amendment would give a wife, deserted or thrown out, the choice of court, including where
she is residing, to file a petition, relieving her of unbearable burden of expense and
Thus, her residence may well constitute the basis of jurisdiction for a petition for divorce
jurisdiction of courts for entertaining petitions for divorce. Although the matrimonial law in
India differs from community to community, the jurisdictional rules differ only slightly.
The time at which domicile is to be determined is the time when proceedings are
commenced.
The LCI has recommended that Section 2 of the Divorce Act 1869 should be suitably
amended in order that the Indian courts shall be entitled to entertain a petition for
dissolution of a Christian marriage where either of the parties to the marriage is domiciled
in India at the time when the petition is presented. However, this suggestion would also
need simultaneous change in the rule of Private International Law as to a wifes domicile,
that is, abolition of wifes dependent domicile, as done in England through the Domicile
and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. In the alternative, following the Marriage Laws
(Amendment) Act 2003, the said provision may be amended to provide that a petition for
23
178th Report on Recommendations for amending Various Enactments, both Civil and Criminal (2001)
17
divorce may be filed by a Christian wife at the place where she is residing on the date of
5. CONCLUSION
domicile of choice in that country. Domicile is the most significant connecting factor in
English conflict of laws. It is difficult to define, but easier to understand in practice. There
are important principles of domicile. Everyone is born with a domicile of origin, which
remains (if only in abeyance). Domicile of choice can be acquired by residence and an
There is no simple definition of the legal term "domicile". It is a concept which is distinct
from residence, ordinary residence, nationality and citizenship. In very simple terms, a
person is domiciled in the territory with which the law regards him as having his most
permanent connection. The law of domicile can, however,produce strange results. Where
the concept of domicile connects a person with a legal system, that legal system then
death and certain taxation implications. Residence indicates a degree of physical presence
in a territory, but a person may be domiciled in a territory in which he does not reside,
which he never visits, and to which he has never even been. Although a person may have
more than one nationality, or none at all,and may be treated as resident in more than one
place at any one time, he must have a place of domicile and can only have one such place
18
at any one time. Furthermore that place of domicile may be different from his place(s) of
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
1. Dicey and Morris: Conflict of Laws; 14thedn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2007
3. H. K. Saharay, Laws of Marriage and Divorce, 5th edition, Eastern Law House,
Kolkata (2007)
4. Cheshire and Norths Private International Law, 13th edition, Butterworths, London
(1999)
5. ParasDiwan, Private International Law, 4th edition, Deep & Deep Publications, New
Delhi (1998),
Reports:
19