Domicile and jurisdiction challenges in cross-border divorce proceedings

The complex interplay between domicile and matrimonial jurisdiction has been scrutinised in Manisha Ramana v Christnan Kist-Ramana, where the Court of Appeal addressed fundamental questions about the retention of domicile of choice following temporary relocation abroad.

Background and initial proceedings

Manisha Ramana commenced divorce proceedings in England on 11 October 2022, following her departure to Mauritius with her husband and children in September 2019. The husband contested jurisdiction, arguing that his wife was not domiciled in England at the time of her application. Mr Justice Williams at first instance accepted this position, concluding that the English courts lacked jurisdiction due to the wife's domicile status.

The family had resided in England from 2000 until September 2019, when financial difficulties necessitated their temporary relocation to Mauritius. The judge found that Manisha's domicile of choice in England had not been maintained by the time she filed for divorce, resulting in the dismissal of her application.

Appeal proceedings and legal arguments

On appeal, counsel Mr Williams and Mr Watts advanced compelling arguments that the first instance judge had failed to consider whether Manisha had actually lost her domicile of choice prior to her application. This distinction proved crucial, highlighting potential misapplication of established legal principles governing domicile retention during periods of absence.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justices Moylan, Popplewell, and Lewison, refocused attention on the fundamental legal framework that individuals retain their domicile of origin unless compelling evidence demonstrates a transition to a new domicile. Crucially, the court emphasised that the evidential burden regarding alleged loss of domicile did not rest solely upon Manisha, but equally upon her husband to establish abandonment of her English domicile of choice.

Analysis of domicile principles

The appellate court recognised that intention to remain in a jurisdiction establishes domicile. Despite residing in Mauritius from 2019, Manisha maintained that she never abandoned her intention to return to England—a consideration inadequately explored in the original judgement. Evidence presented included her historical residency, reasons for relocation being purely financial, and ongoing connections to England.

The initial judgement's conclusion that the family's departure indicated termination of Manisha's domicile failed to account for subsequent developments, particularly her return to England with the children in October 2022. This oversight in considering evolving circumstances and intentions over time became central to the appellate court's analysis.

Outcome and implications

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, remitting the matter for rehearing to determine whether Manisha had genuinely lost her domicile of choice. The judges emphasised that this determination required additional evidence regarding both parties' intentions, particularly concerning their financial arrangements during their Mauritius residence.

Manisha Ramana v Christnan Kist-Ramana establishes important precedent regarding domicile complexities in matrimonial jurisdiction disputes. The decision underscores the necessity for comprehensive legal assessment of intentions, changing circumstances, and the criteria defining domicile retention.

The case demonstrates that temporary relocation for financial reasons does not automatically terminate domicile of choice, particularly where evidence suggests ongoing intention to return. This nuanced approach to domicile assessment reflects the increasingly mobile nature of modern families and the importance of examining subjective intention alongside objective circumstances when determining matrimonial jurisdiction.