Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.1(2), 2(1) and 10 - Extentand applicability of the Act - Extra-territorial operation - Wife'spetition for judicial separation and custody of children -Maintainability of - Challenged by husband on ground that theparties had no domicile in India and, hence, were notgoverned by the Act - Held: The Act has extra-territorial operation and applies to Hindus domiciled in India even if theyreside outside India - If the requirement of domicile in Indiais omitted a/together, the Act shall have no nexus with Indiawhich shall render the Act vulnerable on the ground thatextra-territorial operation has no nexus with India - Domicileof origin prevails until not only another domicile is acquiredbut it must manifest intention of abandoning the domicile oforigin - Unless proved, there is presumption against thechange of domicile - Therefore, the person who alleges it has ·to prove that - Intention is always lodged in the mind, which can be inferred from any act, event or circumstance in the lifeof such person - On facts, no material to endorse thehusband's claim of being domicile of Australia - The husbandor for that matter, the wife and the children did not acquireAustralian citizenship - The claim that the husband desired to permanently reside in Australia, in the face of the materialavailable, can only be termed as a dream - It does notestablish his intention to reside there permanently - Further,there is no whisper at all as to how and in what manner thehusband had abandoned the domicile of origin - The husband continued to have the domicile of origin i.e. India -Both the husband and wife being domicile of India, werecovered by the provisions of the Act - Petition filed by wife,therefore, was maintainable - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.245(2).Private International Law - Domicile - Kinds of - Domicileof origin and domicile of choice - Discussed.