Mehar Singh, J. - (1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this revision application is that of Jurisdiction.
(2.) THE parties are husband and wife and, they were married on 14 -10 -1951, at Delhi. The father of the Plaintiff is a displaced person from Pakistan and has settled at Nabha where he has permanent residence. The Plaintiff is in the Indian Army and thus is liable to be transferred to and posted at different places according to the plaint, the Plaintiff has averred that after his marriage with the Defendant, they lived together as husband and wife for a period of about six weeks at Nabha and Agra. This averment in the plaint is supported by the evidence of the father of the Plaintiff and two respectable witnesses Sardar Sewa Singh, Advocate and S. Ranbir Singh, who is a Manager of the Punjab National Bank at Jtfabha, who have deposed that after the marriage of the parties, they came and lived at the house of the father of the Plaintiff for a week or so. The father of the Plaintiff has further deposed that at that time the Plaintiff was posted at Agra and thereafter the couple went and lived together at Agra. The Defendant has given a denial to this averment in the plaint, but has not produced any evidence to refute this aspect of the case. It may, therefore, be taken as proved that after marriage the parties came to Nabha and lived for a week or so ih the permanent residence of the Plaintiff and thereafter they lived for some time at Agra where, as stated, the Plaintiff was posted in connection with his official duties. The Defendant came to her parents at Delhi from Agra and thereafter she has refused to return to the Plaintiff and to live with him as wife. Upon her refusal to return to him, the Plaintiff instituted a suit against her for restitution of conjugal hits in the court of the Subordinate Judge at abha. One of the defenses raised by the Defendant is that the Court at Nabha has no jurisdiction in the suit. This defense has been rejected the learned Subordinate Judge and this revi -directed against the order so rejecting this defense. The husband is entitled to require the wife to live in his house. The breach without lawful cause of the duty of the wife to reside with her husband is the cause of action in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and the cause of action arises in the place where there has been that breach, namely, in the husband's home; vnugopal Naidu v. Lakshmi Ammal : AIR 1936 Mad 288 (A). The contention on behalf of the Defendant -applicant is that any refusal on her part to live in the house of the Plaintiff was when the Plaintiff resided at Agra and so the Court at Nabha has no jurisdiction in the suit. The reply on behalf of the Plaintiff is that he had residence at two places, one at Nabha where his father and family permanently reside and that is his permanent residence, and the other at Agra where he was posted in connection with his duties and that was his temporary residence, and the refusal of the Defendant to live in his house must be to live in his permanent house if not in his house at both places. Therefore, the Nabha Court has jurisdiction in the suit. What is clear from 'AIR 1938 Mad 288 (A)', is that the refusal of the wife should be to live with her husband in his house, which apparently means where he is at the crucial time ordinarily, or normally having a house, in other words is resident. The ordinary and normal residence of the Plaintiff for the purpose will thus in this case be where he was posted in connection with his duties and was residing till he should be moved to another station. The fact that he has another residence where his family resides and which he calls his permanent residence and which he visits occasionally when on leave or otherwise is really not material to a case like this. To give cause of action in a suit of this type what is to be considered is not the permanent residence but the actual residence where the Plaintiff has to live in the Abdul Rahman v. Ajudhia',, (1892) AWN 115 (B); and Subrammian Chetty v. Maung Po Tha, 11 Ind Cas 851 (LB) (C). Undoubtedly both cases were of money claims against government servants, but in each case the question arose where the Government servant was to be taken to be residing for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the Court to entertain the claim against him, i.e., whether at his permanent residence or at his residence where he was to live because of his posting, and in both cases it has been held that it was the place where he was posted in connection with his service and resides at the time of the institution of the suit and not where his family has permanent residence that is to be taken to be his residence for the purpose of giving the Court jurisdiction. So that upon this view what is to be considered in this case is not the permanent residence of the Plaintiff which he visits occasionally, but his normal and ordinary residence where he lives so long as he is posted there. The fact that he may be transferred to another place does not mean that he does not reside at the second place. The refusal therefore, to live with the husband giving cause of action to the husband to institute a suit for conjugal rights must be refusal to live with him where he resides little time of the refusal and no other residence 'however described can be taken into consideration. In this view, as the Plaintiff was not at the time of the refusal or institution of the suit residing, at Nabha, so the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nabha had no jurisdiction in the suit.
(3.) THE result is that this revision petition succeeds and as the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nabha had no jurisdiction in the suit, so the plaint shall be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to the Court of proper jurisdiction.;