Judgement VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- In this civil revision petition on behalf of the petitioner Mr. M. T. Paikaday learned counsel challenges the order of the learned District Judge of Trivandrum, dated 15th January 1966 overruling the objections raised by the petitioner to entertain O. P. No. 1 (Indian Divorce Act) of 1965, filed by the respondent herein before that Court. 2. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent took place on 2-4-1964. The respondent filed the Original Petition in question before the District Court, Trivandrum, under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Central Act 4 of 1869), to as the Act, for a declaration that the marriage that took place between her and the revision petitioner on 2-4-1964 is null and void. It is not necessary for us, at this stage, to refer to the various averments made in the Original Petition or in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, regarding the grounds, on the basis of which the Original Petition had been filed; because the short controversy that arises for consideration, at the hands of this Court at this stage, is regarding the correctness or otherwise of the order of the learned District Judge, Trivandrum, holding that the said Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. 3. It is necessary to briefly advert to the averments contained in the Original Petition, as well as in the written statement filed therein, in so far as they are necessary for the present purpose. The respondent has stated in the said Original Petition that she is a resident of Ernakulam and that her parents are residing in Thrikkakara. The revision petitioner, who was employed as an Engineer in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, was working at the material time, in Bombay and he has also his parents' house in Trivandrum. The respondent further states that her marriage took place at St. Thomas Jacobite Syrian Church, Kakkanad, within the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam District Court, on 2-4-1964. It is further stated that from the date of the marriage, till about the end of April 1964, the respondent lived with the revision petitioner at the residence of the revision petitioner's parents, in Trivandrum, excepting for 3 days when they lived together at the residence of the respondent's parents at Thrikkakara. It is further stated that from the date of the marriage, till about the end of April 1964, the respondent lived with the revision petitioner at the residence of the revision petitioner's parents, in Trivandrum, excepting for 3 days when they lived together at the residence of the respondent's parents at Thrikkakara. There is a further statement in paragraph 4 of the Original Petition to the effect, that the permanent place of residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum. The respondent further states in paragraph 7 of the Original Petition-the material part of which relates to present controversy-that at the time of the marriage and till about the end of 1964, the revision petitioner was employed in Bombay, and was staying there. In paragraph 9 of the Original Petition, the respondent categorically states that the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together at Trivandrum, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. Ultimately the respondent prays for the reliefs referred to in the Original Petition, referred to above. 4. Therefore, it will be seen that according to the respondent, the permanent place of residence of the 'revision petitioner is at Trivandrum; and her further averment is that both of them last resided together at Trivandrum, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. 5. The revision petitioner has filed a fairly detailed written statement, controverting the various allegations made by the respondent in the Original Petition, both regarding the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, to entertain the Original Petition, as well as on merits. The revision petitioner has stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement that the allegation of the respondent in the Original Petition that the permanent place of residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum is denied. The revision petitioner also states that he had not any permanent place of residence at the time of the marriage, nor had he any thereafter at any relevant time. Then he gives the details about the various places in India from time to time, where, according to him he has stayed for the last nearly 20 years. He has also stated that he has been staying most of the time in hostels attached to educational institutions and in Hotels and Boarding Houses and occasionally with his parents who were living in various rented houses in Trivandrum. He has also stated that he has been staying most of the time in hostels attached to educational institutions and in Hotels and Boarding Houses and occasionally with his parents who were living in various rented houses in Trivandrum. More recently, the petitioner states, the avocation or occupation that he was having, itself required considerable travel and shifts. In this connection, he states that he stayed in Jabalpore for 28 weeks from October 15, 1962, in Ahamedabad for the next 8 weeks, in Bombay for the next 8 weeks, later in Bangalore for 2 weeks, then in Delhi for 2 weeks, and next in Bombay till about the end of March 1964. He has also stated that he has spent about 3 weeks in Trivandrum, and the first week of May in Bangalore. Then he winds up paragraph 4 of the written statement by stating that later on, he has been in Bombay till the middle of October 1964, then in Madras till the middle of March 1965, then again in Jabalpore till July 3rd, and then back again in Madras where he is at the time of filing the written statement. 5-A. It will be seen from the averments made by the revision petitioner in paragraph 4 of his written statement, that so far as we could see, he has not stated that Bombay is his permanent place of residence; nor is there any suggestion, when he refers to his stay in Bangalore, that he intended Bangalore to be a place of abode or residence. He also admits that he was staying for about 3 weeks in April 1964 in Trivandrum. No doubt we are aware of the contention of Mr. Paikaday, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that these averments are enough to establish that his client has no permanent place of residence. That is an aspect which we will have to deal with, in considering the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, on the merits, regarding the order of the learned District Judge that is under attack. 6. Paikaday, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that these averments are enough to establish that his client has no permanent place of residence. That is an aspect which we will have to deal with, in considering the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, on the merits, regarding the order of the learned District Judge that is under attack. 6. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, in so far as it is material for the present purpose, the petitioner has stated that he is a person having very high educational qualifications, and he has also passed the Competitive Examination of the Indian Railway Engineering Services, the T. E. S. Class I Examination of the All Indian Telegraph Engineering Service, Class I. After referring to these aspects, the revision petitioner states that he wanted also the respondent, his wife, to be given a very sound education so that she may be a very good companion in his career; and or that purpose, even at the time of marriage, it was arranged and agreed that the respondent was to shift from Ernakulam and stay at Trivandrum with his parents and prosecute her studies in the Women's College, Trivandrum. The petitioner further states that in pursuance of this agreement, the respondent was transferred from her Ernakulam College, from the beginning of the academic year 1964. In paragraph 13 of the written statement, the revision petitioner has stated that in paragraph 9 of the Original Petition, wherein, as we have already pointed out, the respondent has categorically stated that the place where they last resided was Trivandrum within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, is false and is denied. Then the revision petitioner states that "the petitioner and the respondent "last resided together not in Trivandrum but at Bangalore, from May 1st, to 7th, 1964, in a P. and T. Bungalow." He also states that the statement contained in paragraph 9 of the Original Petition is false, and it has been made deliberately so as to enable the respondent to file the Original Petition in the District Court, Trivandrum. He also expresses the inconvenience and hardship that will be caused to him, if the proceedings are conducted in the said Court. He also expresses the inconvenience and hardship that will be caused to him, if the proceedings are conducted in the said Court. But the point to be noted is that he categorically states that, according to him, the place where they last resided together is not Trivandrum, but Bangalore; and the date of that last residence is also given as 1-5-64 to 7-5-64. Again, in paragraph 14 of the written statement the revision petitioner has stated that the place where the parties last resided together having been Bangalore, the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction in respect of the Original Petition filed by the Respondent, and therefore, a request was made by the revision petitioner that the said question may be heard and decided as a preliminary issue. Finally, in paragraph 17 of the written statement the revision petitioner, after categorically stating that the various statements made by the respondent in the Original Petition are all false and not true, has also taken up the position that the Original Petition has been filed in a Court having no territorial jurisdiction over its subject-matter; and he therefore prays for a dismissal of the Original Petition filed by the respondent herein. 7. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions contained in the Act. Section 4, occurring in Ch. II dealing with jurisdiction, provides for the District Courts "subject to the provisions in this Act contained" to exercise the jurisdiction which was being then exercised by the High Courts in respect of divorce. The expression 'District Court' has been defined in S. 3, Cl. (3) as follows : "(3) "District Court" means, in the case of any petition under this Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction, or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together:" It will be seen that in order to enable a District Court to have jurisdiction over matters covered by the Act, it is necessary that the husband and wife should reside or should have last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court. In this case it is not necessary for us to consider the question as to whether the revision petitioner and the respondent reside within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. In this case it is not necessary for us to consider the question as to whether the revision petitioner and the respondent reside within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. The controversy really is as to where exactly, it has to be stated in this case, that they 'last resided together'. While, according to the revision petitioner, they last resided together in Bangalore, according to the respondent they last resided together in Trivandrum. It is needless to state that unless the respondent, who has invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, by filing the Original Petition in question, is able to satisfy that Court that the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, that Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. 8. We have already referred to the fact that the revision petitioner has raised the question that the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition ; and that was on the ground that both of them last resided together, not in Trivandrum as alleged by the respondent, but in Bangalore. For this purpose the revision petitioner filed I. A. No. 1435/65, requesting the learned District Judge to try issue No. 3 in the Original Petition, which related to jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the Original Petition, as a preliminary issue. The revision petitioner has stated in the said application that inasmuch as issue No. 3 relates to the very jurisdiction of the District Court to conduct the proceedings, it is essential that it should be heard and disposed of as a preliminary issue. It is further stated that if the said issue is decided in his favour, there will be no necessity for proceeding with the trial of the proceedings on merits. 9. That application was opposed by the respondent. In her counter-affidavit she has stated that the permanent residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum at the time of marriage and filing of the Original Petition. She has also referred to the fact that the revision petitioner has expressly admitted in a letter sent to her dated 30-7-1964, a copy of which has been filed in these proceedings, that the place of last residence of both of them is Trivandrum. The letter referred to is Ext. She has also referred to the fact that the revision petitioner has expressly admitted in a letter sent to her dated 30-7-1964, a copy of which has been filed in these proceedings, that the place of last residence of both of them is Trivandrum. The letter referred to is Ext. P-2, to which we have to advert a little later. The respondent further states that the place where both of them last resided was the house in Trivandrum within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum and that the revision petitioner and his parents were and are permanent residents of Trivandrum for more than 20 years or more. She has also averred that the revision petitioner studied in the Engineering College, Trivandrum for the full period of the course and took his degree from there. She again reiterates that the permanent residence of the revision petitioner at the time of his marriage was in the house owned by his parents in the C. I. T. Colony, Trivandrum, and continues to be so. She further states that the revision petitioner has no other house elsewhere either in Kerala or outside, and that it was in that house that the settlement of marriage took place and the petitioner and the respondent last resided together, as mentioned in the Original Petition, at Trivandrum. She also refers to the fact that the halt in Bangalore was on the way to Bombay, and it was not a residence at all. 10. The revision petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent in I. A. 1435/1965. In that rejoinder statement, the revision petitioner has referred to the fact that he is very strenuously controverting the claim of the respondent that they last resided together in Trivandrum. According to him, the place where they last resided together was at Bangalore. He again refers to the material averments contained in the written statement filed by him in the Original Petition disputing the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum District Court to entertain the Original Petition. Then there is a further averment to the effect that the assertion made by the respondent regarding their last place of residence, is a matter for argument and proof. Then there is a further averment to the effect that the assertion made by the respondent regarding their last place of residence, is a matter for argument and proof. The revision petitioner further states that the assertion of the respondent that he is a permanent resident of Trivandrum is not based upon any averment that he owns or even has permanent right of residence in any place or building in Trivandrum; but that his parents lived mostly in Trivandrum and as their child he also has lived with them for considerable periods. That, according to him, will not constitute residence as required by the statute. Then again, the revision petitioner meets the averments of the respondent on merits, by stating that even his parents do not have any permanent residence in Trivandrum, in the sense of owning a building there, and it was only recently, i.e. in 1964, that his mother acquired a living house there, and it has since been let out to third parties. Ultimately the revision petitioner refers to the fact that the claim made by the respondent that their stay at Bangalore during the period 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964-however short it be-was a halt on the way to Bombay, and not a residence, is not correct. According to him, their stay at Bangalore constitutes the place where they last resided together; and therefore, it is only the Bangalore Court that will have jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. Then again he refers to his transfer from Madras since the filing of his written statement, and is at Coimbatore at the material time. He further states that with regard to their last residing together at Bangalore, it is necessary to note that the respondent was not on her way to Bombay or anywhere, but returned to Trivandrum from Bangalore; and the revision petitioner himself went in the first instance to Hubli, and later to Bombay. Therefore the revision petitioner again reiterates his request for treating issue No. 8 as a preliminary issue. 11. The learned District Judge declined to grant the request of the revision petitioner and rejected it, by order dated 16-12-1965. In fact the order passed by the learned District Judge was to the effect that the parties will get ready for trial by adducing evidence on all the issues. Accordingly the proceedings were adjourned to 4-1-1966. 11. The learned District Judge declined to grant the request of the revision petitioner and rejected it, by order dated 16-12-1965. In fact the order passed by the learned District Judge was to the effect that the parties will get ready for trial by adducing evidence on all the issues. Accordingly the proceedings were adjourned to 4-1-1966. It is seen that the revision petitioner challenged the said order of the learned District Judge in this Court in C. R. P. No. 1329/ 65. The grievance of the revision petitioner was that inasmuch as the question of jurisdiction is essentially to be decided as a preliminary issue, the order of the learned District Judge postponing decision on that issue along with the other issues would work serious hardship and injustice to him; and the claim of the revision petitioner was that if he is able to succeed in his contention that the District Court, Trivandrum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition, then it would become unnecessary to take any further proceedings before that Court. Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in the C. R. P. referred to above for giving directions to the lower Court to take up issue No. 3 and dispose of it before evidence is adduced on merits. This Court, by its order dated 13th December 1965, set aside the order of the learned District Judge dated 11-11-65, and ultimately directed the learned District Judge to take up issue No. 3 in the first instance and adjudicate upon the same on or before 10-1-1966. It was also indicated in the order of this Court that such a short time was being fixed in order to have an expeditious disposal of this matter. 12. It is now seen that the learned District Judge, after the directions referred to above were given by this Court in its order in C. R. P. 1329/65, posted the matter by his order dated 16-12-1965, directing the parties to get ready with their evidence, and posted the matter to 4-1-1966. On that day it is seen, that the parties adduced evidence and also produced necessary documentary and oral evidence relied on by them; and on 15-1-1966 the learned Judge passed the order which is under attack. On that day it is seen, that the parties adduced evidence and also produced necessary documentary and oral evidence relied on by them; and on 15-1-1966 the learned Judge passed the order which is under attack. By that order the learned Judge has ultimately overruled the objection raised by the revision petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum District Court to entertain the Original Petition, and negatived the claim of the revision petitioner that the place where they last resided together was Bangalore. On the other hand, the view of the learned District Judge is that the place where the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together was Trivandrum, in which case, under S. 3, Cl. (3) of the Act the Trivandrum District Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition filed by the respondent. In that connection the learned District Judge has also referred to several decisions, to which his attention was drawn, and also to the materials placed before him by the parties. Ultimately, as we have already indicated, the finding of the learned District Judge on issue No. 3 is against the revision petitioner. 13. Before we consider the points that have been raised by Mr. Manuel T. Paikaday, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is necessary to briefly refer to the evidence that was available before the learned District Judge, on the basis of which he has recorded the finding in question. On behalf of the respondent, Exts. P-1 and P-2 were marked, and the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 was also adduced. It may be stated that P. W. 3 is the respondent herself. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is seen that he did not adduce any oral evidence either of himself or of anybody else. On the other hand he has produced four items of documentary evidence, namely Exts. D-1 to D-4. At this stage it may be mentioned that we are well aware of the fact that the order under attack, is in proceedings brought up to this Court under S. 115, C. P. C. We are also well aware of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, including the latest decision reported in Rathilal v. Ranchhodbhai, AIR 1966 SC 439, regarding the ambit and limitations of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under S. 115 of the Code. While conscious of the scope of the limitation in the exercise of power by this Court under S. 115, C. P. C., we are dealing with the matter a little more elaborately for this reason, because the proceedings in question were initiated before the District Court under the Act, and one of the questions that has been adjudicated by the District Court and which arises for consideration in these proceedings is the question of jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the Original Petition filed by the respondent. In fact, this Full Bench itself has been constituted, in view of the fact that any final order that may be passed by the District Court and which will have to come up to this Court for confirmation, can be dealt with only by a Bench of three Judges. Therefore, inasmuch as this Court is practically exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, we are rather elaborately adverting to the materials that have been placed by the parties as well as the various principles laid down in the decisions which have been referred to by learned counsel on both sides, to satisfy ourselves as to whether the finding recorded by the learned District Judge is correct or not. 14. Ext. P-1 dated 1-4-1964 is a Desakuri; and that has been issued by the Parish at Trivandrum to the Vicar of Kakkanad Church at Thirikkakara, wherein admittedly the marriage was solemnised, on 2-4-1964. There is a statement in Ext. P-1 to the effect*. No doubt that is referred to in describing the person in whose favour it was issued, namely the revision petitioner; and that has been interpreted by the learned District Judge, and also supported by Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer learned counsel for the respondent, as showing that the revision petitioner was a resident of Trivandrum. That is an aspect, which we will have to consider a little later. Ext. P-2 is a letter dated 30-7-1964 written by the revision petitioner, from Bombay, to the respondent who was at Trivandrum. It is not necessary for us to refer to the several matters that are adverted to therein, excepting to note that the petitioner categorically states that "....till I get enough income of my own to keep ourselves in comfort. In the meantime, my parents' house is mine also, and in staying there, you are staying with me. It is not necessary for us to refer to the several matters that are adverted to therein, excepting to note that the petitioner categorically states that "....till I get enough income of my own to keep ourselves in comfort. In the meantime, my parents' house is mine also, and in staying there, you are staying with me. You cannot continue your education also if you stay elsewhere....." It is not necessary to advert to the other matters referred to in this letter. This again, though not specifically adverted to by the learned District Judge in his order, has operated in his mind, to come to the conclusion that even according to the revision petitioner, the house where his parents are living and to which place the respondent has also been transferred for the purpose of her education, must be considered to be the place where the revision petitioner has got residence. And it is in that view, that the learned District Judge has considered the claim made by the parties concerned, as to where exactly they could be considered to have "last resided together". * Portion in origional script omitted-Ed. 15. P. W. 3, as we have already mentioned, is the respondent herself. Her oral evidence has been accepted by the lower Court. P. W. 1 merely proves Ext. P-1. P. W. 2 is a person who claims to be a neighbour of the parents of the revision petitioner. He has spoken to the fact that the revision petitioner's parents have been staying at Trivandrum for a number of years. He has also spoken to the revision petitioner having stayed there very often and also to having had his education there. But, in our opinion, P. W. 2's evidence will only show that the revision petitioner's parents were living at Trivandrum for a long number of years, that the revision petitioner had his education at Trivandrum, and that he was also staying with his parents very often, and also at the time of the marriage and afterwards with his wife. But, in our opinion, that evidence, along with the other evidence, will have to be taken into account for considering the question as to whether the claim of the respondent that the place where they last resided together is Trivandrum, can be accepted or not. But, in our opinion, that evidence, along with the other evidence, will have to be taken into account for considering the question as to whether the claim of the respondent that the place where they last resided together is Trivandrum, can be accepted or not. That will again depend upon the further question as to what in law is necessary to constitute "residence". P. W. 3 has spoken to the fact that she was married on 2-4-1964 to the revision petitioner at Kakkanad Church, and after the marriage they came over to Trivandrum for about 3 days, and after staying at Trivandrum for 2 or 3 days they came over to her parents' house at Thrikkakkara. She further says that after 2 or 3 days' stay in Thrikkakkara they went back to Trivandrum and stayed there till the end of April 1964. In particular, she says that she stayed in Trivandrum for about 22 days and that during that period, she was staying at the revision petitioner's house with the revision petitioner. She has also stated that along with them, the parents of the revision petitioner were also staying in the same house. The respondent has further stated that the revision petitioner mentioned to her that the house at Trivandrum belonged to them. But she does not know in whose name the house actually stood. Then she has stated that after their stay in Trivandrum, the revision petitioner and the respondent left for Bombay, and on their way they stopped at Bangalore for 5 or 6 days. She has further stated that while at Bangalore they lived at the P. and T. Bungalow. She further refers to the fact that along with them, there were some other guests also living in other rooms. In cross-examination, the respondent has stated that the revision petitioner told her that he has got a house in Trivandrum. She also states that after living for 22 days in Trivandram, she had no occasion at all, to live with the respondent, in Trivandrum again. In further cross-examination she has referred to the fact that she did not go to Bombay, because the revision petitioner told that he was going en route to Bombay; and she returned to Trivandrum from Bangalore. She has also stated that her mother-in-law, the mother of the revision petitioner, also accompanied them and was staying with them in Bangalore. In further cross-examination she has referred to the fact that she did not go to Bombay, because the revision petitioner told that he was going en route to Bombay; and she returned to Trivandrum from Bangalore. She has also stated that her mother-in-law, the mother of the revision petitioner, also accompanied them and was staying with them in Bangalore. From Bangalore, the respondent states, that the revision petitioner went to Hubli and then from there to Bombay. She no doubt states that she lived from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964 at Bangalore. But no doubt she later on states that she is not sure about the dates. Then she refers to Ext. D-1, which is a letter written by the revision petitioner to her on 15-5-1964 from Hubli. She also refers to the fact that before marriage, she had lived for a few days in Trivandrum. Then she admits that she has no house of her own in Trivandrum. Then she refers to the fact that she met the revision petitioner 2 months before marriage, for the first time, at her house at Thrikkakara. 16. On the side of the revision petitioner, as we have already indicated, there is no oral evidence adduced; the evidence consists of Exts. D-1 to D-4. Ext. D-1 is a letter written by the revision petitioner to the respondent on 10-5-1964; and it was written from Bombay where the revision petitioner was then staying, to his wife who was staying in Trivandrum. In that letter, he has referred to the fact that Bangalore has been constituted into a Telephone District, and so he expects to be able to stay in Bangalore at least for the next four years if he is posted there in a vacancy in October 1964. Ext. D-2 is a communication addressed by the revision petitioner to the S. S. P., Bangalore City Division, dated 9-4-1964, requesting for accommodation in the Inspection Bungalow, Bangalore, from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964. In that communication he states that his wife also will be accompanying him and therefore he wants the entire small suite to be reserved for their accommodation. Ext. D-3 is a communication issued from the office of the S. S. P. Bangalore, which refers to the reservations made for the periods in question, not only for the revision petitioner, but also for certain others. Ext. Ext. D-3 is a communication issued from the office of the S. S. P. Bangalore, which refers to the reservations made for the periods in question, not only for the revision petitioner, but also for certain others. Ext. D-4 is an extract from the Visitor's Register of P. and T. Inspection quarters at Shoolay, Bangalore, from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964. 17. This was the evidence that was available before the learned District Judge on the basis of which, he ultimately came to the conclusion that it must be held that the revision petitioner is a resident of Trivandrum and that the place where the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together must be considered to be Trivandrum, which is within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. Regarding the claim made by the revision petitioner that the place where they last resided together was at Bangalore, the view of the learned District Judge is that the stay at Bangalore is merely a casual or flying visit; and having due regard to the decisions referred to by the learned Judge, he held that it cannot certainly be stated that they intended to have residence at Bangalore for an indefinite period. Therefore ultimately the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that going by the recitals in Ext. P-1, which, according to the learned Judge, will show that the revision petitioner is a person residing within the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum Parish, and also by what the learned Judge says are the admissions made by the revision petitioner in Ext. P-2 it must be held that the place where they last resided together is Trivandrum. Therefore on issue 3 a finding has been recorded by the learned District Judge as against the revision petitioner. 18. Before we refer to the contentions of the learned counsel, it is again necessary to refer to some of the salient features of the evidence given by the respondent, namely the wife, as P. W. 3. So far as we could see, there is no effective cross-examination of that party regarding the answer given by her that the revision petitioner had mentioned to her that they had got a house in Trivandrum. No doubt the respondent has stated that she does not know as to whom exactly the house belonged. Excepting that suggestion, there is no counter-evidence adduced by the petitioner himself by way of rebuttal. No doubt the respondent has stated that she does not know as to whom exactly the house belonged. Excepting that suggestion, there is no counter-evidence adduced by the petitioner himself by way of rebuttal. There is one other aspect that has to be adverted to, namely when the respondent stated that en route to Bombay, they stopped in Bangalore, there is no suggestion put to her as to the object of their visit to Bangalore; nor is there any suggestion made to her that by going to Bangalore and staying there, they intended to make it their abode or place of residence. As to what effect these matters have in considering the main controversy in the present case, is a totally different point. There is also one other aspect to be noted, namely that there is no suggestion put to the respondent in cross-examination that by going to Bangalore and staying there they intended to make Bangalore their residence. No doubt a point which has been very much stressed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely that they must have gone to Bangalore, as part of a honeymoon trip has not even been suggested to the respondent. Even if it is such a trip, it will not make any differance. 19. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised two contentions. The first contention is that the judgment delivered by the learned District Judge on 15-1-1966, contrary to the directions given by this Court in its order in C. R. P. 1329/65 dated 13-12-1965, is absolutely null and void and has no validity in law. That is, according to the learned counsel, the order must be considered to be a nullity. The second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is really as against the opinion expressed on merits by the learned District Judge on issue No. 3. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner must be considered to have no permanent place of residence, in which case, the last stay at any place-for however short a period-must be considered to be the place where the revision petitioner and the respondent "last resided together" under S. 3 (3) of the Act. In which case, such last residence, being in Bangalore from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964, the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. In which case, such last residence, being in Bangalore from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964, the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. Alternatively the learned counsel, under this head, also urged that even if the place of residence of the revision petitioner is Bombay, namely where he is having his official career temporarily, and which is his place of employment, a stay, after the marriage, in Ernakulam in the first instance or in Trivandrum for a little longer period, or in Bangalore in the first week of May 1964, are all of the same quality, and none of them can be called different from the stay in the other place. In which case, the learned counsel points out, that Bangalore is the place, where even according to the admission of the respondent, they last stayed; and therefore that place must be considered to be one where they last resided together and therefore the District Court, Trivandrum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. 20. Both the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are controverted by Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Subramania Iyer pointed out that no doubt there was a direction given by this Court in its order in C. R. P. 1329/65, to dispose of issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue and to adjudicate upon it on or before 10-1-1966. According to the learned counsel, the actual recording of the evidence and other proceedings were over by 4-1-1966; but the learned District Judge delivered his judgment only on 15-1-1966. The learned counsel also pointed out that the District Court, Trivandrum has got jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition under the Divorce Act, and it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of that Court to consider also any objection to its jurisdiction to entertain the same. The adjudication of that aspect is also part of the jurisdiction conferred on that Court. It is not as if, the learned counsel pointed out, that by virtue of the directions given by this Court in C. R. P. 1329/65, for the first time and under certain conditions, a limited jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court, in which case, the position may be different. It is not as if, the learned counsel pointed out, that by virtue of the directions given by this Court in C. R. P. 1329/65, for the first time and under certain conditions, a limited jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court, in which case, the position may be different. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel, even assuming that there has been a technical violation of the directions given by this Court committed by the learned District Judge, by adjudicating upon the matter only on 15-1-1966, and not within the time directed by this Court, the order passed by that Court cannot be treated as a nullity. 21. In this connection Mr. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for respondent, drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey, AIR 1964 SC 907. The contention that was taken before the Supreme Court in that case was that in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, a Court whether objection regarding the plea of limitation was raised or not, was bound to consider whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. On the other hand, it was ultimately seen that a claim which was barred by limitation, was decreed by the trial Court; and therefore, a contention was taken before the Supreme Court that the said decree must be treated as a nullity absolutely void and having no validity whatsoever. In dealing with that contention, their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceed to state that if a Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the party, passes a decree, it cannot certainly be treated as a nullity and ignored in subsequent litigation, even if the suit was one barred by time; and if the suit was barred by time and yet the Court decreed it, the decree can only be an illegality, and therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have the decree set aside by preferring an appeal against it. Their Lordships also observe that if a Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and had also jurisdiction over the party, merely because it made an error in deciding a vital issue, arising for decision in the suit, the decision rendered by that Court cannot be considered to be beyond its jurisdiction. Their Lordships also observe that if a Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and had also jurisdiction over the party, merely because it made an error in deciding a vital issue, arising for decision in the suit, the decision rendered by that Court cannot be considered to be beyond its jurisdiction. Their Lordships further observe that Courts have jurisdiction to decide right or to decide wrong; and even though they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by them cannot be treated as nullity. The Supreme Court also adverts to the fact that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which is a peremptory provision, it is the duty of the Court to take notice of this provision and give effect to it, even though the point of limitation is not referred to in the pleadings. Even under those circumstances, the Supreme Court points out, if the Court fails to perform its duty, it does not act without jurisdiction, but merely commits an error of law; and an error of law can be corrected only in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil procedure, namely the aggrieved party taking up the matter in appeal, before the appropriate appellate Court; and so long as such a decree, however erroneous it may be, has not been challenged, that erroneous decree will hold good and will not be open to challenge on the ground of being a nullity. Judgement VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- In this civil revision petition on behalf of the petitioner Mr. M. T. Paikaday learned counsel challenges the order of the learned District Judge of Trivandrum, dated 15th January 1966 overruling the objections raised by the petitioner to entertain O. P. No. 1 (Indian Divorce Act) of 1965, filed by the respondent herein before that Court. 2. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent took place on 2-4-1964. The respondent filed the Original Petition in question before the District Court, Trivandrum, under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Central Act 4 of 1869), to as the Act, for a declaration that the marriage that took place between her and the revision petitioner on 2-4-1964 is null and void. The respondent filed the Original Petition in question before the District Court, Trivandrum, under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Central Act 4 of 1869), to as the Act, for a declaration that the marriage that took place between her and the revision petitioner on 2-4-1964 is null and void. It is not necessary for us, at this stage, to refer to the various averments made in the Original Petition or in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, regarding the grounds, on the basis of which the Original Petition had been filed; because the short controversy that arises for consideration, at the hands of this Court at this stage, is regarding the correctness or otherwise of the order of the learned District Judge, Trivandrum, holding that the said Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. 3. It is necessary to briefly advert to the averments contained in the Original Petition, as well as in the written statement filed therein, in so far as they are necessary for the present purpose. The respondent has stated in the said Original Petition that she is a resident of Ernakulam and that her parents are residing in Thrikkakara. The revision petitioner, who was employed as an Engineer in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, was working at the material time, in Bombay and he has also his parents' house in Trivandrum. The respondent further states that her marriage took place at St. Thomas Jacobite Syrian Church, Kakkanad, within the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam District Court, on 2-4-1964. It is further stated that from the date of the marriage, till about the end of April 1964, the respondent lived with the revision petitioner at the residence of the revision petitioner's parents, in Trivandrum, excepting for 3 days when they lived together at the residence of the respondent's parents at Thrikkakara. There is a further statement in paragraph 4 of the Original Petition to the effect, that the permanent place of residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum. The respondent further states in paragraph 7 of the Original Petition-the material part of which relates to present controversy-that at the time of the marriage and till about the end of 1964, the revision petitioner was employed in Bombay, and was staying there. The respondent further states in paragraph 7 of the Original Petition-the material part of which relates to present controversy-that at the time of the marriage and till about the end of 1964, the revision petitioner was employed in Bombay, and was staying there. In paragraph 9 of the Original Petition, the respondent categorically states that the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together at Trivandrum, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. Ultimately the respondent prays for the reliefs referred to in the Original Petition, referred to above. 4. Therefore, it will be seen that according to the respondent, the permanent place of residence of the 'revision petitioner is at Trivandrum; and her further averment is that both of them last resided together at Trivandrum, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. 5. The revision petitioner has filed a fairly detailed written statement, controverting the various allegations made by the respondent in the Original Petition, both regarding the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, to entertain the Original Petition, as well as on merits. The revision petitioner has stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement that the allegation of the respondent in the Original Petition that the permanent place of residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum is denied. The revision petitioner also states that he had not any permanent place of residence at the time of the marriage, nor had he any thereafter at any relevant time. Then he gives the details about the various places in India from time to time, where, according to him he has stayed for the last nearly 20 years. He has also stated that he has been staying most of the time in hostels attached to educational institutions and in Hotels and Boarding Houses and occasionally with his parents who were living in various rented houses in Trivandrum. More recently, the petitioner states, the avocation or occupation that he was having, itself required considerable travel and shifts. In this connection, he states that he stayed in Jabalpore for 28 weeks from October 15, 1962, in Ahamedabad for the next 8 weeks, in Bombay for the next 8 weeks, later in Bangalore for 2 weeks, then in Delhi for 2 weeks, and next in Bombay till about the end of March 1964. In this connection, he states that he stayed in Jabalpore for 28 weeks from October 15, 1962, in Ahamedabad for the next 8 weeks, in Bombay for the next 8 weeks, later in Bangalore for 2 weeks, then in Delhi for 2 weeks, and next in Bombay till about the end of March 1964. He has also stated that he has spent about 3 weeks in Trivandrum, and the first week of May in Bangalore. Then he winds up paragraph 4 of the written statement by stating that later on, he has been in Bombay till the middle of October 1964, then in Madras till the middle of March 1965, then again in Jabalpore till July 3rd, and then back again in Madras where he is at the time of filing the written statement. 5-A. It will be seen from the averments made by the revision petitioner in paragraph 4 of his written statement, that so far as we could see, he has not stated that Bombay is his permanent place of residence; nor is there any suggestion, when he refers to his stay in Bangalore, that he intended Bangalore to be a place of abode or residence. He also admits that he was staying for about 3 weeks in April 1964 in Trivandrum. No doubt we are aware of the contention of Mr. Paikaday, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that these averments are enough to establish that his client has no permanent place of residence. That is an aspect which we will have to deal with, in considering the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, on the merits, regarding the order of the learned District Judge that is under attack. 6. Paikaday, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that these averments are enough to establish that his client has no permanent place of residence. That is an aspect which we will have to deal with, in considering the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, on the merits, regarding the order of the learned District Judge that is under attack. 6. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, in so far as it is material for the present purpose, the petitioner has stated that he is a person having very high educational qualifications, and he has also passed the Competitive Examination of the Indian Railway Engineering Services, the T. E. S. Class I Examination of the All Indian Telegraph Engineering Service, Class I. After referring to these aspects, the revision petitioner states that he wanted also the respondent, his wife, to be given a very sound education so that she may be a very good companion in his career; and or that purpose, even at the time of marriage, it was arranged and agreed that the respondent was to shift from Ernakulam and stay at Trivandrum with his parents and prosecute her studies in the Women's College, Trivandrum. The petitioner further states that in pursuance of this agreement, the respondent was transferred from her Ernakulam College, from the beginning of the academic year 1964. In paragraph 13 of the written statement, the revision petitioner has stated that in paragraph 9 of the Original Petition, wherein, as we have already pointed out, the respondent has categorically stated that the place where they last resided was Trivandrum within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, is false and is denied. Then the revision petitioner states that "the petitioner and the respondent "last resided together not in Trivandrum but at Bangalore, from May 1st, to 7th, 1964, in a P. and T. Bungalow." He also states that the statement contained in paragraph 9 of the Original Petition is false, and it has been made deliberately so as to enable the respondent to file the Original Petition in the District Court, Trivandrum. He also expresses the inconvenience and hardship that will be caused to him, if the proceedings are conducted in the said Court. He also expresses the inconvenience and hardship that will be caused to him, if the proceedings are conducted in the said Court. But the point to be noted is that he categorically states that, according to him, the place where they last resided together is not Trivandrum, but Bangalore; and the date of that last residence is also given as 1-5-64 to 7-5-64. Again, in paragraph 14 of the written statement the revision petitioner has stated that the place where the parties last resided together having been Bangalore, the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction in respect of the Original Petition filed by the Respondent, and therefore, a request was made by the revision petitioner that the said question may be heard and decided as a preliminary issue. Finally, in paragraph 17 of the written statement the revision petitioner, after categorically stating that the various statements made by the respondent in the Original Petition are all false and not true, has also taken up the position that the Original Petition has been filed in a Court having no territorial jurisdiction over its subject-matter; and he therefore prays for a dismissal of the Original Petition filed by the respondent herein. 7. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions contained in the Act. Section 4, occurring in Ch. II dealing with jurisdiction, provides for the District Courts "subject to the provisions in this Act contained" to exercise the jurisdiction which was being then exercised by the High Courts in respect of divorce. The expression 'District Court' has been defined in S. 3, Cl. (3) as follows : "(3) "District Court" means, in the case of any petition under this Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction, or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together:" It will be seen that in order to enable a District Court to have jurisdiction over matters covered by the Act, it is necessary that the husband and wife should reside or should have last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court. In this case it is not necessary for us to consider the question as to whether the revision petitioner and the respondent reside within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. In this case it is not necessary for us to consider the question as to whether the revision petitioner and the respondent reside within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. The controversy really is as to where exactly, it has to be stated in this case, that they 'last resided together'. While, according to the revision petitioner, they last resided together in Bangalore, according to the respondent they last resided together in Trivandrum. It is needless to state that unless the respondent, who has invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, by filing the Original Petition in question, is able to satisfy that Court that the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum, that Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. 8. We have already referred to the fact that the revision petitioner has raised the question that the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition ; and that was on the ground that both of them last resided together, not in Trivandrum as alleged by the respondent, but in Bangalore. For this purpose the revision petitioner filed I. A. No. 1435/65, requesting the learned District Judge to try issue No. 3 in the Original Petition, which related to jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the Original Petition, as a preliminary issue. The revision petitioner has stated in the said application that inasmuch as issue No. 3 relates to the very jurisdiction of the District Court to conduct the proceedings, it is essential that it should be heard and disposed of as a preliminary issue. It is further stated that if the said issue is decided in his favour, there will be no necessity for proceeding with the trial of the proceedings on merits. 9. That application was opposed by the respondent. In her counter-affidavit she has stated that the permanent residence of the revision petitioner is at Trivandrum at the time of marriage and filing of the Original Petition. She has also referred to the fact that the revision petitioner has expressly admitted in a letter sent to her dated 30-7-1964, a copy of which has been filed in these proceedings, that the place of last residence of both of them is Trivandrum. The letter referred to is Ext. She has also referred to the fact that the revision petitioner has expressly admitted in a letter sent to her dated 30-7-1964, a copy of which has been filed in these proceedings, that the place of last residence of both of them is Trivandrum. The letter referred to is Ext. P-2, to which we have to advert a little later. The respondent further states that the place where both of them last resided was the house in Trivandrum within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum and that the revision petitioner and his parents were and are permanent residents of Trivandrum for more than 20 years or more. She has also averred that the revision petitioner studied in the Engineering College, Trivandrum for the full period of the course and took his degree from there. She again reiterates that the permanent residence of the revision petitioner at the time of his marriage was in the house owned by his parents in the C. I. T. Colony, Trivandrum, and continues to be so. She further states that the revision petitioner has no other house elsewhere either in Kerala or outside, and that it was in that house that the settlement of marriage took place and the petitioner and the respondent last resided together, as mentioned in the Original Petition, at Trivandrum. She also refers to the fact that the halt in Bangalore was on the way to Bombay, and it was not a residence at all. 10. The revision petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent in I. A. 1435/1965. In that rejoinder statement, the revision petitioner has referred to the fact that he is very strenuously controverting the claim of the respondent that they last resided together in Trivandrum. According to him, the place where they last resided together was at Bangalore. He again refers to the material averments contained in the written statement filed by him in the Original Petition disputing the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum District Court to entertain the Original Petition. Then there is a further averment to the effect that the assertion made by the respondent regarding their last place of residence, is a matter for argument and proof. Then there is a further averment to the effect that the assertion made by the respondent regarding their last place of residence, is a matter for argument and proof. The revision petitioner further states that the assertion of the respondent that he is a permanent resident of Trivandrum is not based upon any averment that he owns or even has permanent right of residence in any place or building in Trivandrum; but that his parents lived mostly in Trivandrum and as their child he also has lived with them for considerable periods. That, according to him, will not constitute residence as required by the statute. Then again, the revision petitioner meets the averments of the respondent on merits, by stating that even his parents do not have any permanent residence in Trivandrum, in the sense of owning a building there, and it was only recently, i.e. in 1964, that his mother acquired a living house there, and it has since been let out to third parties. Ultimately the revision petitioner refers to the fact that the claim made by the respondent that their stay at Bangalore during the period 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964-however short it be-was a halt on the way to Bombay, and not a residence, is not correct. According to him, their stay at Bangalore constitutes the place where they last resided together; and therefore, it is only the Bangalore Court that will have jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. Then again he refers to his transfer from Madras since the filing of his written statement, and is at Coimbatore at the material time. He further states that with regard to their last residing together at Bangalore, it is necessary to note that the respondent was not on her way to Bombay or anywhere, but returned to Trivandrum from Bangalore; and the revision petitioner himself went in the first instance to Hubli, and later to Bombay. Therefore the revision petitioner again reiterates his request for treating issue No. 8 as a preliminary issue. 11. The learned District Judge declined to grant the request of the revision petitioner and rejected it, by order dated 16-12-1965. In fact the order passed by the learned District Judge was to the effect that the parties will get ready for trial by adducing evidence on all the issues. Accordingly the proceedings were adjourned to 4-1-1966. 11. The learned District Judge declined to grant the request of the revision petitioner and rejected it, by order dated 16-12-1965. In fact the order passed by the learned District Judge was to the effect that the parties will get ready for trial by adducing evidence on all the issues. Accordingly the proceedings were adjourned to 4-1-1966. It is seen that the revision petitioner challenged the said order of the learned District Judge in this Court in C. R. P. No. 1329/ 65. The grievance of the revision petitioner was that inasmuch as the question of jurisdiction is essentially to be decided as a preliminary issue, the order of the learned District Judge postponing decision on that issue along with the other issues would work serious hardship and injustice to him; and the claim of the revision petitioner was that if he is able to succeed in his contention that the District Court, Trivandrum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition, then it would become unnecessary to take any further proceedings before that Court. Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in the C. R. P. referred to above for giving directions to the lower Court to take up issue No. 3 and dispose of it before evidence is adduced on merits. This Court, by its order dated 13th December 1965, set aside the order of the learned District Judge dated 11-11-65, and ultimately directed the learned District Judge to take up issue No. 3 in the first instance and adjudicate upon the same on or before 10-1-1966. It was also indicated in the order of this Court that such a short time was being fixed in order to have an expeditious disposal of this matter. 12. It is now seen that the learned District Judge, after the directions referred to above were given by this Court in its order in C. R. P. 1329/65, posted the matter by his order dated 16-12-1965, directing the parties to get ready with their evidence, and posted the matter to 4-1-1966. On that day it is seen, that the parties adduced evidence and also produced necessary documentary and oral evidence relied on by them; and on 15-1-1966 the learned Judge passed the order which is under attack. On that day it is seen, that the parties adduced evidence and also produced necessary documentary and oral evidence relied on by them; and on 15-1-1966 the learned Judge passed the order which is under attack. By that order the learned Judge has ultimately overruled the objection raised by the revision petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum District Court to entertain the Original Petition, and negatived the claim of the revision petitioner that the place where they last resided together was Bangalore. On the other hand, the view of the learned District Judge is that the place where the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together was Trivandrum, in which case, under S. 3, Cl. (3) of the Act the Trivandrum District Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition filed by the respondent. In that connection the learned District Judge has also referred to several decisions, to which his attention was drawn, and also to the materials placed before him by the parties. Ultimately, as we have already indicated, the finding of the learned District Judge on issue No. 3 is against the revision petitioner. 13. Before we consider the points that have been raised by Mr. Manuel T. Paikaday, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is necessary to briefly refer to the evidence that was available before the learned District Judge, on the basis of which he has recorded the finding in question. On behalf of the respondent, Exts. P-1 and P-2 were marked, and the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 was also adduced. It may be stated that P. W. 3 is the respondent herself. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is seen that he did not adduce any oral evidence either of himself or of anybody else. On the other hand he has produced four items of documentary evidence, namely Exts. D-1 to D-4. At this stage it may be mentioned that we are well aware of the fact that the order under attack, is in proceedings brought up to this Court under S. 115, C. P. C. We are also well aware of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, including the latest decision reported in Rathilal v. Ranchhodbhai, AIR 1966 SC 439, regarding the ambit and limitations of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under S. 115 of the Code. While conscious of the scope of the limitation in the exercise of power by this Court under S. 115, C. P. C., we are dealing with the matter a little more elaborately for this reason, because the proceedings in question were initiated before the District Court under the Act, and one of the questions that has been adjudicated by the District Court and which arises for consideration in these proceedings is the question of jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the Original Petition filed by the respondent. In fact, this Full Bench itself has been constituted, in view of the fact that any final order that may be passed by the District Court and which will have to come up to this Court for confirmation, can be dealt with only by a Bench of three Judges. Therefore, inasmuch as this Court is practically exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, we are rather elaborately adverting to the materials that have been placed by the parties as well as the various principles laid down in the decisions which have been referred to by learned counsel on both sides, to satisfy ourselves as to whether the finding recorded by the learned District Judge is correct or not. 14. Ext. P-1 dated 1-4-1964 is a Desakuri; and that has been issued by the Parish at Trivandrum to the Vicar of Kakkanad Church at Thirikkakara, wherein admittedly the marriage was solemnised, on 2-4-1964. There is a statement in Ext. P-1 to the effect*. No doubt that is referred to in describing the person in whose favour it was issued, namely the revision petitioner; and that has been interpreted by the learned District Judge, and also supported by Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer learned counsel for the respondent, as showing that the revision petitioner was a resident of Trivandrum. That is an aspect, which we will have to consider a little later. Ext. P-2 is a letter dated 30-7-1964 written by the revision petitioner, from Bombay, to the respondent who was at Trivandrum. It is not necessary for us to refer to the several matters that are adverted to therein, excepting to note that the petitioner categorically states that "....till I get enough income of my own to keep ourselves in comfort. In the meantime, my parents' house is mine also, and in staying there, you are staying with me. It is not necessary for us to refer to the several matters that are adverted to therein, excepting to note that the petitioner categorically states that "....till I get enough income of my own to keep ourselves in comfort. In the meantime, my parents' house is mine also, and in staying there, you are staying with me. You cannot continue your education also if you stay elsewhere....." It is not necessary to advert to the other matters referred to in this letter. This again, though not specifically adverted to by the learned District Judge in his order, has operated in his mind, to come to the conclusion that even according to the revision petitioner, the house where his parents are living and to which place the respondent has also been transferred for the purpose of her education, must be considered to be the place where the revision petitioner has got residence. And it is in that view, that the learned District Judge has considered the claim made by the parties concerned, as to where exactly they could be considered to have "last resided together". * Portion in origional script omitted-Ed. 15. P. W. 3, as we have already mentioned, is the respondent herself. Her oral evidence has been accepted by the lower Court. P. W. 1 merely proves Ext. P-1. P. W. 2 is a person who claims to be a neighbour of the parents of the revision petitioner. He has spoken to the fact that the revision petitioner's parents have been staying at Trivandrum for a number of years. He has also spoken to the revision petitioner having stayed there very often and also to having had his education there. But, in our opinion, P. W. 2's evidence will only show that the revision petitioner's parents were living at Trivandrum for a long number of years, that the revision petitioner had his education at Trivandrum, and that he was also staying with his parents very often, and also at the time of the marriage and afterwards with his wife. But, in our opinion, that evidence, along with the other evidence, will have to be taken into account for considering the question as to whether the claim of the respondent that the place where they last resided together is Trivandrum, can be accepted or not. But, in our opinion, that evidence, along with the other evidence, will have to be taken into account for considering the question as to whether the claim of the respondent that the place where they last resided together is Trivandrum, can be accepted or not. That will again depend upon the further question as to what in law is necessary to constitute "residence". P. W. 3 has spoken to the fact that she was married on 2-4-1964 to the revision petitioner at Kakkanad Church, and after the marriage they came over to Trivandrum for about 3 days, and after staying at Trivandrum for 2 or 3 days they came over to her parents' house at Thrikkakkara. She further says that after 2 or 3 days' stay in Thrikkakkara they went back to Trivandrum and stayed there till the end of April 1964. In particular, she says that she stayed in Trivandrum for about 22 days and that during that period, she was staying at the revision petitioner's house with the revision petitioner. She has also stated that along with them, the parents of the revision petitioner were also staying in the same house. The respondent has further stated that the revision petitioner mentioned to her that the house at Trivandrum belonged to them. But she does not know in whose name the house actually stood. Then she has stated that after their stay in Trivandrum, the revision petitioner and the respondent left for Bombay, and on their way they stopped at Bangalore for 5 or 6 days. She has further stated that while at Bangalore they lived at the P. and T. Bungalow. She further refers to the fact that along with them, there were some other guests also living in other rooms. In cross-examination, the respondent has stated that the revision petitioner told her that he has got a house in Trivandrum. She also states that after living for 22 days in Trivandram, she had no occasion at all, to live with the respondent, in Trivandrum again. In further cross-examination she has referred to the fact that she did not go to Bombay, because the revision petitioner told that he was going en route to Bombay; and she returned to Trivandrum from Bangalore. She has also stated that her mother-in-law, the mother of the revision petitioner, also accompanied them and was staying with them in Bangalore. In further cross-examination she has referred to the fact that she did not go to Bombay, because the revision petitioner told that he was going en route to Bombay; and she returned to Trivandrum from Bangalore. She has also stated that her mother-in-law, the mother of the revision petitioner, also accompanied them and was staying with them in Bangalore. From Bangalore, the respondent states, that the revision petitioner went to Hubli and then from there to Bombay. She no doubt states that she lived from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964 at Bangalore. But no doubt she later on states that she is not sure about the dates. Then she refers to Ext. D-1, which is a letter written by the revision petitioner to her on 15-5-1964 from Hubli. She also refers to the fact that before marriage, she had lived for a few days in Trivandrum. Then she admits that she has no house of her own in Trivandrum. Then she refers to the fact that she met the revision petitioner 2 months before marriage, for the first time, at her house at Thrikkakara. 16. On the side of the revision petitioner, as we have already indicated, there is no oral evidence adduced; the evidence consists of Exts. D-1 to D-4. Ext. D-1 is a letter written by the revision petitioner to the respondent on 10-5-1964; and it was written from Bombay where the revision petitioner was then staying, to his wife who was staying in Trivandrum. In that letter, he has referred to the fact that Bangalore has been constituted into a Telephone District, and so he expects to be able to stay in Bangalore at least for the next four years if he is posted there in a vacancy in October 1964. Ext. D-2 is a communication addressed by the revision petitioner to the S. S. P., Bangalore City Division, dated 9-4-1964, requesting for accommodation in the Inspection Bungalow, Bangalore, from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964. In that communication he states that his wife also will be accompanying him and therefore he wants the entire small suite to be reserved for their accommodation. Ext. D-3 is a communication issued from the office of the S. S. P. Bangalore, which refers to the reservations made for the periods in question, not only for the revision petitioner, but also for certain others. Ext. Ext. D-3 is a communication issued from the office of the S. S. P. Bangalore, which refers to the reservations made for the periods in question, not only for the revision petitioner, but also for certain others. Ext. D-4 is an extract from the Visitor's Register of P. and T. Inspection quarters at Shoolay, Bangalore, from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964. 17. This was the evidence that was available before the learned District Judge on the basis of which, he ultimately came to the conclusion that it must be held that the revision petitioner is a resident of Trivandrum and that the place where the revision petitioner and the respondent last resided together must be considered to be Trivandrum, which is within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Trivandrum. Regarding the claim made by the revision petitioner that the place where they last resided together was at Bangalore, the view of the learned District Judge is that the stay at Bangalore is merely a casual or flying visit; and having due regard to the decisions referred to by the learned Judge, he held that it cannot certainly be stated that they intended to have residence at Bangalore for an indefinite period. Therefore ultimately the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that going by the recitals in Ext. P-1, which, according to the learned Judge, will show that the revision petitioner is a person residing within the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum Parish, and also by what the learned Judge says are the admissions made by the revision petitioner in Ext. P-2 it must be held that the place where they last resided together is Trivandrum. Therefore on issue 3 a finding has been recorded by the learned District Judge as against the revision petitioner. 18. Before we refer to the contentions of the learned counsel, it is again necessary to refer to some of the salient features of the evidence given by the respondent, namely the wife, as P. W. 3. So far as we could see, there is no effective cross-examination of that party regarding the answer given by her that the revision petitioner had mentioned to her that they had got a house in Trivandrum. No doubt the respondent has stated that she does not know as to whom exactly the house belonged. Excepting that suggestion, there is no counter-evidence adduced by the petitioner himself by way of rebuttal. No doubt the respondent has stated that she does not know as to whom exactly the house belonged. Excepting that suggestion, there is no counter-evidence adduced by the petitioner himself by way of rebuttal. There is one other aspect that has to be adverted to, namely when the respondent stated that en route to Bombay, they stopped in Bangalore, there is no suggestion put to her as to the object of their visit to Bangalore; nor is there any suggestion made to her that by going to Bangalore and staying there, they intended to make it their abode or place of residence. As to what effect these matters have in considering the main controversy in the present case, is a totally different point. There is also one other aspect to be noted, namely that there is no suggestion put to the respondent in cross-examination that by going to Bangalore and staying there they intended to make Bangalore their residence. No doubt a point which has been very much stressed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely that they must have gone to Bangalore, as part of a honeymoon trip has not even been suggested to the respondent. Even if it is such a trip, it will not make any differance. 19. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised two contentions. The first contention is that the judgment delivered by the learned District Judge on 15-1-1966, contrary to the directions given by this Court in its order in C. R. P. 1329/65 dated 13-12-1965, is absolutely null and void and has no validity in law. That is, according to the learned counsel, the order must be considered to be a nullity. The second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is really as against the opinion expressed on merits by the learned District Judge on issue No. 3. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner must be considered to have no permanent place of residence, in which case, the last stay at any place-for however short a period-must be considered to be the place where the revision petitioner and the respondent "last resided together" under S. 3 (3) of the Act. In which case, such last residence, being in Bangalore from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964, the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. In which case, such last residence, being in Bangalore from 1-5-1964 to 7-5-1964, the District Court, Trivandrum, has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. Alternatively the learned counsel, under this head, also urged that even if the place of residence of the revision petitioner is Bombay, namely where he is having his official career temporarily, and which is his place of employment, a stay, after the marriage, in Ernakulam in the first instance or in Trivandrum for a little longer period, or in Bangalore in the first week of May 1964, are all of the same quality, and none of them can be called different from the stay in the other place. In which case, the learned counsel points out, that Bangalore is the place, where even according to the admission of the respondent, they last stayed; and therefore that place must be considered to be one where they last resided together and therefore the District Court, Trivandrum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. 20. Both the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are controverted by Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Subramania Iyer pointed out that no doubt there was a direction given by this Court in its order in C. R. P. 1329/65, to dispose of issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue and to adjudicate upon it on or before 10-1-1966. According to the learned counsel, the actual recording of the evidence and other proceedings were over by 4-1-1966; but the learned District Judge delivered his judgment only on 15-1-1966. The learned counsel also pointed out that the District Court, Trivandrum has got jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition under the Divorce Act, and it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of that Court to consider also any objection to its jurisdiction to entertain the same. The adjudication of that aspect is also part of the jurisdiction conferred on that Court. It is not as if, the learned counsel pointed out, that by virtue of the directions given by this Court in C. R. P. 1329/65, for the first time and under certain conditions, a limited jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court, in which case, the position may be different. It is not as if, the learned counsel pointed out, that by virtue of the directions given by this Court in C. R. P. 1329/65, for the first time and under certain conditions, a limited jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court, in which case, the position may be different. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel, even assuming that there has been a technical violation of the directions given by this Court committed by the learned District Judge, by adjudicating upon the matter only on 15-1-1966, and not within the time directed by this Court, the order passed by that Court cannot be treated as a nullity. 21. In this connection Mr. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for respondent, drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey, AIR 1964 SC 907. The contention that was taken before the Supreme Court in that case was that in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, a Court whether objection regarding the plea of limitation was raised or not, was bound to consider whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. On the other hand, it was ultimately seen that a claim which was barred by limitation, was decreed by the trial Court; and therefore, a contention was taken before the Supreme Court that the said decree must be treated as a nullity absolutely void and having no validity whatsoever. In dealing with that contention, their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceed to state that if a Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the party, passes a decree, it cannot certainly be treated as a nullity and ignored in subsequent litigation, even if the suit was one barred by time; and if the suit was barred by time and yet the Court decreed it, the decree can only be an illegality, and therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have the decree set aside by preferring an appeal against it. Their Lordships also observe that if a Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and had also jurisdiction over the party, merely because it made an error in deciding a vital issue, arising for decision in the suit, the decision rendered by that Court cannot be considered to be beyond its jurisdiction. Their Lordships also observe that if a Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and had also jurisdiction over the party, merely because it made an error in deciding a vital issue, arising for decision in the suit, the decision rendered by that Court cannot be considered to be beyond its jurisdiction. Their Lordships further observe that Courts have jurisdiction to decide right or to decide wrong; and even though they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by them cannot be treated as nullity. The Supreme Court also adverts to the fact that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which is a peremptory provision, it is the duty of the Court to take notice of this provision and give effect to it, even though the point of limitation is not referred to in the pleadings. Even under those circumstances, the Supreme Court points out, if the Court fails to perform its duty, it does not act without jurisdiction, but merely commits an error of law; and an error of law can be corrected only in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil procedure, namely the aggrieved party taking up the matter in appeal, before the appropriate appellate Court; and so long as such a decree, however erroneous it may be, has not been challenged, that erroneous decree will hold good and will not be open to challenge on the ground of being a nullity.