Term- animus revertendi
Translation- intention to return
Definition- “Wild animals, such as bees and homing pigeons, that by habit go ‘home’ to their possessor. Used when discussing ferae naturae.”
Animus revertendi is a Latin term that refers to the intention to return. In legal terms, it is often used in the context of immigration law to describe a person’s intent to return to their home country after a temporary stay in another country.
In immigration law, the concept of animus revertendi is important because it can help to establish a person’s immigration status and eligibility for certain visas or other forms of legal status. If a person can demonstrate that they have a genuine intention to return to their home country after a temporary stay abroad, it may help to support their claim for a visa or other immigration benefits.
For example, if a person applies for a tourist visa to visit another country, they may be asked to provide evidence of their animus revertendi, such as proof of ties to their home country, such as family, property, or employment. This can help to establish that the person does not intend to overstay their visa or immigrate to the other country illegally.
Overall, animus revertendi is an important concept in immigration law that can help to establish a person’s intention to return to their home country after a temporary stay abroad. By demonstrating a genuine intention to return, a person may be able to obtain legal status or other benefits in another country.
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date.
Animus revertendi: the intention to return
The maxim appears in two branches of Indian law – the law of property in animals, and the law of domicile and residence.
- Animals and theft. Wild animals (ferae naturae) belong to no one until caught; once tamed, or if they have a habit of returning – pigeons, bees, cattle grazing on commons – they remain the owner’s property while the animus revertendi continues, and taking them is theft under Section 303 BNS (formerly 379 IPC). Illustration (p) to Section 378 IPC, carried into the BNS, treats a man who takes a stray dog with a dishonest intention as a thief because the dog is still in its owner’s possession in law. Once the habit of returning is lost, the animal is again res nullius and belongs to the first taker.
- Domicile. A person’s domicile of origin is retained until a domicile of choice is acquired by residence in another country with the intention of remaining there permanently; a person who leaves intending to return (animus revertendi) does not lose his domicile. Sections 9–13 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 codify these rules for succession to movable property, and the Supreme Court applied them in Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain (1955) and Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini (2013), where the domicile of a couple who had moved abroad decided whether the Hindu Marriage Act applied to their divorce.
- Residence for jurisdiction. “Resides” in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 20 CPC means where a person actually and voluntarily lives with an intention to stay or return, not a casual visit; the intention to return keeps a matrimonial home the place of residence even during a temporary posting elsewhere.
- Abandonment of property and tenancy. Whether a tenant has “abandoned” premises, or a person has given up possession of land, depends on whether he left with the intention to return; a long absence with belongings still in place and rent being paid is not abandonment.
- Citizenship and tax. The intention to return underlies the distinction between a person “ordinarily resident” in India and a non-resident under the Income-tax Act and the Citizenship Act, though both now use day-count tests rather than intention alone.
The maxim is one of several in which the law looks to a person’s or animal’s settled intention to decide ownership or status; animus possidendi (intention to possess) and animus deserendi (intention to desert, in matrimonial law) are its relatives. See Section 379 IPC – theft and Legal Maxims Explained.
Related maxims explained on this site: detur digniori and lis alibi pendens.
Frequently asked questions
Yes, if it still belongs to someone – a dog, cow or pigeon that habitually returns home remains in its owner’s possession, and taking it dishonestly is theft under Section 303 BNS (Illustration (p) to Section 378 IPC).
Not merely by residence abroad. Domicile changes only when residence is combined with an intention to remain permanently; a person who intends to return to India retains Indian domicile, which matters for succession to movables and for the application of personal law.
The intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end – one of the two elements of desertion as a ground of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the other being the factual separation.
