PLD 1954

P L D 1953 Dacca 147 (PLP)

RALPH WILLIAM BAGLEY‑Plaintiff‑Petitioner Versus ELIZABETH BAGLEY‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Divorce Suit No. 5 of 1951 of the Court of the District Judge, Dacca, decree confirmed on 16th May 1952.
Honorable Judges
Ellis, Ispahani and Afzal, JJ.
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1953 Dacca 147 (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Ellis, Ispahani and Afzal, JJ.
Parties RALPH WILLIAM BAGLEY‑Plaintiff‑Petitioner Versus ELIZABETH BAGLEY‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1953 Dacca 147 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1953 Dacca 147 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ellis, Ispahani and Afzal, JJ..

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1953 Dacca 147 (PLP) (RALPH WILLIAM BAGLEY‑Plaintiff‑Petitioner Versus ELIZABETH BAGLEY‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Pankoi Coomar Ghose, for Petitioner.
  • No one for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Divorce Act (IV of 7869), S. 2‑Domicile of origin or domicile of choice‑Whether domicile of origin can be abandoned or domicile of choice acquired‑Conditions for acquiring new domicile‑Mere residence whether enough. Any person who is sui juris may at any time abandon the domicile of origin and adopt a domicile of choice, upon fulfilling two conditions that is by : Voluntarily fixing his and his family's habitation in the new place, and (ii) With the present intention of making it his permanent home. There must therefore be both the factum of residence and the animus manendi and there must be no animus revertendi to the former domicile. Residence or animus manendi by itself will not be enough to confer a new domicile. A person continues to retain his domicile of origin until a domicile of choice is acquired and even then the domicile of origin merely remains in abeyance. Lord v. Colvin (1559) 28 L J C H 361, Wright v. Wright I L R 58 Cal. 259 and Rooke v. Rooke A I R 1934 Bom. 230 ref.

Judgment & Decree

ISPAHANI, J.

‑I agree AFZAL, J.‑

I agree. A. H. Decree confirmed.