In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 142: ( 1984) 3 SCC 654.
The SC has held that in India Article 5 recognises only one domicile viz., domicile of India. It has only one citizenship viz. the Citizenship of India.
In Mohammad Raza v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 1436:
The Court held that though the appellant was original resident, but he did not acquire Indian Citizenship because he did not have a domicile in India.
In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India ( 1991) 3 SCC 554:
The Court held that the Petitioners failed to establish that they had an intention to reside in India Permanently. The Petitioners did not have their domocile in India. For the acquisition of a domicile of choice, it must be shown that the person concerned had a certain state of mind, If he claims that he had axquired a new domicile a particular time he must prove that he had formed the ‘ intention of making his permanent home in the country of residence’.
Naziranbai v. State of M.P., AIR 1957 MB 1
A Minor or married woman is not independent person. Neither of these classes has the legal capacity to make a change of domicile. Therefore, the domocile of an infant generally follows the domicile of his father.
Prakash v. Shahni, AIR 1956 J & K 83
The Court held that A Widow retains the domicile of her husband until changed by her own act.
Karimunissa v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 Nag.6.
The Court held that A married woman takes the domicile of her husband.
Aslam Khan v Fazal Khan, AIR 1959 All. 79.
Intention is an important element in determining the domicile of a person It can be inferred from the conduct of persons. Thus a person in Government service, who was given the choice for opting for India or Pakistan, actually went to Pakistan, served there under the Government of Pakistan, but who subsequently resigned his job there and came to India cannot claim the benefit of Article 5 for he never became the Citizen of India.