Student’s two-year stay outside Gujarat due to father’s transfer does not break domicile continuity, court rules

The petitioner, born in Maharashtra in 2009, studied in Gujarat from nursery until October 2019.

She then lived and studied in Maharashtra for two years and two months because her father was transferred there, before returning to Gujarat in 2022 and resuming her studies there.

In July 2026, she applied for a Gujarat Domicile Certificate.

The application was rejected on the ground that she had not been continuously resident in Gujarat for ten years.

She challenged the rejection orders and sought a direction for issuance of the certificate.

At the hearing, she did not press a separate prayer in paragraph 22(C) of the petition; the matter proceeded on the request to quash the orders and issue the certificate.

1. Whether the petitioner’s two-year-and-two-month absence from Gujarat, caused by her father’s transfer, could be treated as a break in her continuous residence for the purpose of issuing a Gujarat Domicile Certificate.

2. Whether the rejection orders should be quashed and the authorities directed to issue the certificate in light of the cited decisions of the Gujarat High Court.

The Court relied on Muskan Sunilkant Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State of Gujarat, and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar v. Mamlatdar Office, Surat, applying the principle that a student’s absence from Gujarat for a period due to a parent’s transfer should not, in the circumstances considered in those cases, be treated as a break when assessing the ten-year residence requirement for a domicile certificate.

The Court also referred to the Muskan decision’s conclusions that domicile denotes residence of a particular kind, which need not be continuous but must be indefinite rather than fleeting, and that an additional continuous-ten-year-stay condition cannot be introduced where the applicable rule does not prescribe it.

The petitioner had pursued her education in Gujarat for most of her life, and her absence in Maharashtra was solely attributable to her father’s transfer.

Applying the cited decisions, the Court held that it would not be reasonable to count that period as a break in her Gujarat residence for the relevant ten-year requirement.

The State identified no distinguishing facts warranting a different result.

Rule was made absolute.