Domicile and residence, etymologically, 'residence' and 'domicile' carry the same meaning, inasmuch as both refer to the permanent home, but under Private International Law, 'domicile' carries a little different sense and exhibits many facets. In spite of having a permanent home, a person may have a commercial, a political or forensic domicile. 'Domicile' may also take many colours; it may be domicile of origin, domicile of choice, domicile by operation of law or domicile of dependence. In Private International Law domicile' jurisprudentially has a different concept altogether, Union of India v. Dudh Nath Pandey, AIR 2000 SC 525 (532): (2002) 2 SCC 20.
In spite of having a permanent home, a person may have a commercial, a political or a forensic domicil, Union of India v. Dudh Nath Prasad, (2000) 2 SCC 20.
It means a person must have a permanant home in Chandigarh or he has been there for years with the intention to live there permanently or indefinitely, Chandigarh Housing Board v. Gurmit Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 29.