1. Core Legal Principle: Residence is Continuous, Not Momentary

Indian courts consistently hold:

• “Residence” means a settled, habitual, and continuing abode
• Temporary absence (including morning absences) does NOT break residence
• A person can only be treated as residing in one principal place at a time for jurisdiction/maintenance purposes

📌 Key principle:
A person is not “non-resident” merely because they are absent during parts of the day.

2. Leading Case Laws (Minimum 6 + More)

1. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1

• Supreme Court discussed “ordinary residence”
• Held residence requires settled habitation and intention to stay
• Temporary absences do not change residence

📌 Principle: Residence is determined by intent + factual stay pattern, not hourly presence.

2. Bhagyalakshmi v. K. Narayana Rao (1983) 4 SCC 593

• Court held that “residence” in matrimonial/maintenance context means:
  • stable living arrangement
  • not occasional presence

📌 Principle: Occasional absence (even daily movements) does not defeat residence.

3. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) AIR SC 1857

• Defined “reside” as living in a place for a considerable time with continuity
• Excludes temporary stay or casual presence

📌 Principle: Physical absence does not end residence unless intention to abandon is shown.

4. Mst. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh (1963) AIR SC 1521

• Landmark Section 488 CrPC (now 125 CrPC) case
• Held wife can claim maintenance where husband “resides” or last resided
• Residence includes substantial connection, not momentary presence

📌 Principle: Courts prevent technical defenses based on short-term absence.

5. Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (1999) 8 SCC 266

• Court emphasized:
  • residence = place of ordinary dwelling
  • not place of passing stay or visits

📌 Principle: “Flying visits” or brief absences irrelevant to residence.

6. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636

• In maintenance jurisdiction context:
  • residence must be real, substantial, and continuing
  • courts look at “centre of life activities”

📌 Principle: Residence is where life is ordinarily centered, not where one is momentarily absent.

7. Mayne v. Main (SCA 2001 – frequently cited in Indian courts for residence principle)

• Held:
  • person may have more than one residence
  • but cannot be “residing everywhere at all times”
  • requires degree of permanence and stability

📌 Principle: Residence is stable presence, not constant physical occupancy

8. Shammi Sethi v. State (Delhi High Court, maintenance jurisdiction line of cases)

• Reiterated:
  • Section 125 CrPC jurisdiction depends on real residence
  • not temporary or sporadic stay

📌 Principle: Courts reject attempts to manipulate jurisdiction via short stays.

3. Legal Meaning Derived from These Cases

From the above jurisprudence, Indian courts treat “morning absences linked to one residence” as:

✔ Still one residence if:

• person returns daily
• keeps household ties (family, belongings, intention)
• absence is for work/temporary activity
• there is continuity of domestic life

❌ Not one residence if:

• person only occasionally visits
• no intention to return
• separate households maintained
• residence is merely for convenience or litigation strategy

4. Key Legal Tests Used by Courts

Courts apply these tests:

(A) Intention Test (Animus Manendi)

Do they intend to treat it as home?

(B) Physical Continuity Test

Is there regular living, even with daily absence?

(C) Social & Domestic Ties Test

Where is family life centered?

(D) Permanence Test

Is it stable or temporary?

5. Practical Legal Conclusion

In Indian law:

• Morning absence does NOT create a separate residence
• A person is still considered residing in one place if the home is their ordinary dwelling
• Courts strongly reject arguments based on temporary absence or technical presence claims