Manisha Ramana v Christnan Kist-Ramana

For divorce jurisdiction under Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, a party who has established an English domicile of choice retains it unless the opposing party proves its loss. Loss requires both cessation of residence and cessation of the intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. The issue must be decided by a global evaluation of all relevant evidence, including later conduct.

An intention linked to a future contingency is a relevant evidential factor, but its uncertainty is not decisive. The court must determine whether the intention was genuine and real in the circumstances. It should not impose a rigid threshold based solely on the likelihood, vagueness or indefiniteness of the contingency.

The wife, whose domicile of origin was Mauritius, had lived in England from 2000 until the family moved to Mauritius in September 2019. She returned to England with the children in October 2022 and issued a divorce application four days later. She relied on domicile in England and Wales as the sole jurisdictional ground.

Williams J found that she had acquired an English domicile of choice before 2016, but held that it ended when the family left England in 2019. He dismissed the divorce application for want of jurisdiction. The wife appealed, contending that the judge had failed properly to decide whether she had lost that domicile and had placed the burden of proof on the wrong party.

The central issue was whether the wife had lost her English domicile of choice before 11 October 2022.

Appeal allowed unanimously. The order dismissing the divorce application for want of jurisdiction was set aside. The issue of domicile, together with the husband’s application for a stay, was remitted for rehearing.

1. Section 5(2)(g) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 made domicile on the date of the application the relevant jurisdictional fact. The wife had the burden of proving that she had acquired an English domicile of choice before the family left England in 2019. Once that was established, however, the husband bore the burden of proving that she had lost it before 11 October 2022.

2. A domicile of choice is lost only when both residence and the intention to reside permanently or indefinitely are given up. It is unnecessary to prove a positive intention never to return. It is enough to prove the absence of an intention to continue residing in the country.

3. The judge erred by failing clearly to address loss of domicile as a distinct issue and by treating the burden as resting solely on the wife. He also failed to make the required global evaluation of the evidence. In particular, he excluded from that evaluation later matters, including the wife’s return to England with the children in 2022 and her subsequent residence here.

4. The judge’s reliance on the uncertainty of the family’s prospective return to England was legally insufficient. A contingency may bear on whether an intention is genuine and real, but it is only one factor in a subjective and fact-sensitive inquiry. The authorities do not establish a rigid threshold under which an intention based on an uncertain, vague or indefinite event must be disregarded. The court must weigh all the evidence, applying the civil standard while requiring cogent evidence of a change of domicile.

5. The evidence could not safely be evaluated afresh without oral evidence. The rehearing must determine whether the husband proves that the wife lost her English domicile of choice before 11 October 2022 and whether the proceedings should be stayed under Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Allowed the wife’s appeal in [2025] EWCA Civ 1022, set aside the dismissal for want of jurisdiction, and remitted the matter for rehearing.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division (Williams J) — On 25 October 2024, dismissed the wife’s divorce application for want of jurisdiction, holding that she was not domiciled in England and Wales on the application date.