JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. Doubting the correctness of the Order dated 2nd July, 2012, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Calcutta in connection with M.A.T. Suit No. 19 of 2007, the petitioner wife has come before this Court for setting aside the said order on the ground that the learned Court below wrongly considered the jurisdiction matter without any specific and separate application from the opposite party husband and that the impugned order was passed at the time of hearing pendente lite alimony application. 2. Learned Judge, Family Court held in his impugned order that since the petitioner has been staying at 3, Manmatha Bhattacharya Street, Kolkata–700 004 as a paying guest, so she does not have any legal status for filing the matrimonial suit. According to the petitioner, the impugned order should be set aside. 3. At the time of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the impugned order is a very well-reasoned order and it does not warrant any interference. 4. After hearing both sides it seems to me that the main controversy centres around in this lis is if a paying guest be treated as a ‘resident’ in view of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the learned Court below “residing as a paying guest can be said to be temporary period of staying and no legal status accrued by the petitioner for filing the instant case.” On that ground learned Judge, Family Court held that he had no jurisdiction to try the said suit and directed the petitioner to take back the plaint and other related documents for presenting the same before a competent Court of law having jurisdiction. 5. Since the fate of this revisional application hinges mainly or law point so factual aspect need not be restated in detail. Learned Court below had discussed the decision reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 934, (Ivy Sarkar (Majumdar) Vs. Sandip Majumdar). In the said judgment a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held the temporary period of stay cannot satisfy the requirement of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act but the learned Court below failed to appreciate the factual aspect of that case. Sandip Majumdar). In the said judgment a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held the temporary period of stay cannot satisfy the requirement of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act but the learned Court below failed to appreciate the factual aspect of that case. In that case, the parties decided to settle themselves at the address at Konnagar and they admittedly settled there permanently and resided there as husband and wife all through out and enjoyed the conjugal right therein since the time of their marriage excepting for 28 days at intervals at the address at Salkia, which is under the jurisdiction of District-Howrah. Learned Judge, Family Court failed to consider that staying of 28 days cannot be equated with the staying in a particular place for more than six years at a stretch. Learned Court below also relied on the decision reported in (1991) 3 SCC 451 , (Y. Narasimha Rao & Ors. Vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi & Anr). In that celebrated judgment Hon’ble Apex Court held that in order to keep jurisdiction on the ground of residence, something more than a temporary stay is required. 6. It was further held that there must be more or less of a permanent character. That judgment was passed in connection with a judgment of a Foreign Court passed in connection with matrimonial dispute. While discussing the rules of private international law of the different countries, the Hon’ble Apex Court held “private international law of the different countries with regard to jurisdiction and merits based variously on domicile, the nationality, residence – permanent or temporary or ad hoc, forum, proper law etc., and ensuring certainty in the most vital field of national life and conformity with public policy. The rule further takes account of the needs of modern life and makes out due allowance to accommodate them. Above all, it gives protection to women, the most vulnerable section of our society whatever the strata to which they may belong. In particular it frees them from the bondage of the tyrannical and servile rule that wife’s domicile follows that of her husband and that it is the husband’s domiciliary law which determines the jurisdiction and judges the merit of the case.” Since both the parties of that case were Hindus so Hon’ble Apex Court held that they should be guided by their personal law i.e. Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, Hon’ble Apex Court has given a rider that private international law of the different countries with regard to jurisdiction and merits based variously on domicile, nationality, residence – permanent or temporary of ad hoc forum, proper law etc., and ensuring certainty in the most vital field of national life and conformity with public policy. Therefore, the said judgment is not squarely applicable in the present case rather the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court goes against the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court. 7. Status of a paying guest is distinguishable from the status of atenancy/ownership. ‘Paying guest’ term can be equated with a lodger with the facility to getting food. As per Black’s Dictionary “lodger” means “a person occupies a designated area in another house but acquires no property interest in the area, which remains in the owner’s legal possession.” So status of paying guest may be temporary or permanent in nature. In such circumstances, it is to be considered how long the person is there as a paying guest. In this instant case, it is found that the petitioner wife is residing at 3, Manmatha Bhattacharya Street, Kolkata-700 004, for more than six years (as on today nine years) and she has the intention to remain there further. Considering the period of her stay, it cannot be said it was purely temporary in nature. For instance, if a person takes a tenancy and resides there not for a specified period in that case he is considered as an “ordinarily resident.” Therefore, if he resides as a paying guest not for a stipulated period but for years together in that case he acquires the status of a “resident.” Hon’ble Apex Court held in a case reported in AIR 1975 SCC 105 , (Smt. Satya Vs. Teja Singh) held that the residence does not mean a temporary residence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce but habitual residence or residence which is intended to be permanent for future as well. In this case, the petitioner wife has been residing there for more than six years on the date of passing of the impugned order and therefore, it cannot be said as a temporary residence but more than that. 8. In this case, the petitioner wife has been residing there for more than six years on the date of passing of the impugned order and therefore, it cannot be said as a temporary residence but more than that. 8. It is true that there is nothing in the code if a paying guest gets the status of “resident.” From our common experience, we find that many people from other districts reside in a mess as a boarder/or as a paying guest in Calcutta for attending their offices or business for decades together. Our laws are not so petrified as to respond to the changing circumstances of a particular case. The Court should not lose sight of realities of life, common course of events and therefore cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting on the ivory tower. A Court of law should take a pragmatic approach to render justice and must come out from a dogmatic approach. 9. In my considered view, the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly it is set aside. The learned Court below has sufficient jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly is directed dispose of the case as early as possible considering the age of the suit. With this direction the civil revisional application stands allowed but without any cost. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 11. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.