2025:HHC:22346 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.166 of 2025 Decided on: 10.07.2025 Sarla Devi ….Petitioner Versus Prakash Chand ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Kumar and Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Naresh K. Verma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, a payer has been made for transfer of HMA No.514/2023, titled Prakash Chand vs. Sarla from the files of learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Palampur to the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Solan. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is presently 65 years old. She is financially not that sound that she can afford to contest the litigation at Palampur. It is also contended that the petitioner has to look after her children and her son is doing nothing. Further a plea has also been raised that the petitioner is suffering with some ailment of eyes. 2 3. The prayer is opposed. It is submitted that the petition is not bonafide. As per the respondent, the petitioner has occupied the house owned by respondent at Solan. She is running a tailoring business. 4. Having considered the material placed on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for transfer of the petition. 5. It is not denied by the petitioner that she is running a tailoring business. This means that the petitioner cannot be said to be financially so weak that she cannot pursue and defend the litigation at Palampur. Presently, the facility of joining Court proceedings through virtual mode is available to all the litigants and the petitioner, if so desires, can always join the proceedings through such mode. This, rather facilitates a litigant to engage a lawyer of choice at the place of his or her residence, who in turn can join the proceedings through virtual mode. It has been found that the son of petitioner is 32 years and daughter is also grown up, aged about 25 years. Thus, this cannot also be a ground for the petitioner to seek transfer of the petition. 3 6. As regards the medical issues relating to eyes as alleged by the petitioner, no tangible evidence has been placed on record to show the gravity of ailment, if any. 7. It can also be noticed that the petition was filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce at Palampur in December 2023 and the petitioner had put in appearance in the said proceedings at Palampur in the month of February 2024. The instant petition was filed more than one year thereafter and no special circumstance has been shown as to why the petitioner was prompted to file the instant petition after joining the proceedings at Palampur for more than one year. 8. The proceedings cannot be ordered to be transferred at the ipse-dixit of the parties. The litigant seeking transfer has to come out with justifiable reasons, which in my considered opinion, are missing in the instant case. 9. In result, there being no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge July 10, 2025 (vt)