1. The petitioner, Joseph William Carol, an Inspector employed by the B.N. Railway, filed a petition against his wife for dissolution of marriage. The respondent has objected that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition. This preliminary objection has been heard to-day.
2. The facts are that Mr. Carol has official quarters provided for him by the railway company at Gondia, in the Central Provinces. He has a bungalow there, and in the same compound an office. The railway company furnishes the office, but Mr. Carol has furnished the bungalow allotted to him himself. His position as Inspector entails a good deal of travelling over the railway line, and therefore, in every month he is for several days away from Gondia. But when he is in Gondia he lives at the quarters assigned to him. In the month of April, shortly before the petition was filed in this case, Mr. Carol came to Allahabad. His last vist to Allahabad before April was in the year 1930. In view of the fact that the petition was filed early in May, it appears to me to be likely that his visit in April may have been necessary on account of his contemplated action in this Court. In any event, whether that be so or not, he says that he came to Allahabad for two days and thereafter every month for the same period, and on each occasion he saw his counsel in connection with his case. He also says that when in Allahabad he busied himself in trying to discover some portion of land which might be suitable for carrying on farming operations. He says that he intends, when he can find a suitable portion of land and obtain a good title to it, to retire from the railway and set up business, in this district as a farmer and as a breeder of dogs. It is obvious from a recital of these facts that the contemplated retirement from the railway and his setting up business in Allahabad is very much in the air. I consider it will be some time before he can find any portion of land in this district which it will be safe for hurt to buy. At any rate, he has not given notice to the railway company, which he must do under the terms of his employment, of his intention to retire. He says that he entered into a definite agreement in April to take two rooms in the house of a certain Pandit in Allahabad for which he agreed to pay Rs. 15 every month, and he has produced receipts purporting to show that this arrangement has been carried out. I am not entirely satisfied with this evidence. It seems unlikely for a man in the position of Mr. Carol to enter into such an agreement. If he was only coming to Allahabad when he could obtain leave and on an average of two days a month, it would be much cheaper for him to stay, at a dak bungalow. Such an agreement can be terminated by 15 days notice in any event. Even if this evidence is accepted, I have come definitely to the conclusion that Mr. Carol has failed to establish that he is now residing in Allahabad within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. In my opinion, his residence within the meaning of Section 3(1), Divorce Act, is in Gondia. No mere casual or temporary visits to Allahabad can possibly constitute 'residence' within the meaning of the Act. Counsel for Mr. Carol presses that it is his client's intention ultimately to take up his abode in this district. Intention has nothing whatever to do with the question of residence. Whether or not a person resides in a particular district is a question of fact and depends in each case upon the evidence. It is impossible to say in this case that Mr. Carol, in the circumstances outlined above, resides within the jurisdiction of this Court. The objection, therefore, of the respondent must succeed. This petition will be returned to counsel for the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court.