IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.578 of 2025 Reserved on:20.03.2026 Decided on: 30.03.2026 Mitali Sharma ….Petitioner Versus Shushank Sharma ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- wife for the transfer of a petition filed by the husband-respondent under the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of marriage, pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla. 2. It has been averred in the petition that the parties got married on 09.02.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs. After some time, on account of some misunderstanding, the relationship between the parties became strained and during this period child named Ridit was born at Solan on 29.06.2023. It has further been averred that the respondent is serving in HP 2 University, Shimla and has never provided any financial assistance to the petitioner to maintain her and their child. 3. The petitioner has averred that the respondent- husband has refused to take care of his child and started disrespecting the petitioner and her family and finally, the petitioner left the matrimonial house of the respondent. The petitioner was constrained to file the petition for grant of maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. It has been averred that divorce petition bearing HMA No.119 of 2025, which is pending in the Court of Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla, be transferred to the court of Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan. 4. The grounds as averred in the petition are that the petitioner has got a minor son and she has no independent source of income and unable to travel to Shimla along with her minor child, as there is none to take care of him during the day time. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since, the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the convenience of the wife has to be seen, therefore, under such circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. 3 6. The petitioner has averred that she had preferred a petition under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act and the Court had granted monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner and her child. She is not able to defend her case at Shimla and she cannot attend the Court proceedings regularly. Further, that the Court at Solan is the most convenient and suitable place for the parties. It was averred that the proceedings for divorce have been instituted at Shimla just to harass the petitioner and her son. 7. The present petition has been contested by the husband-respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is stated that the petitioner herself has instituted two cases one under Section 125 of Cr.PC and another under the Domestic Violence Act and both the cases are pending before the Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that since there is concealment of facts and true facts have not been placed on record, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 4 10. The petitioner primarily has approached this Court for the transfer of divorce proceedings from the Court of Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla to Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan on the ground that she is residing at Solan with her minor son and it is difficult for her to come to Shimla regularly in order to attend the Court proceedings. The petitioner tried to portray that it will be very inconvenient for her to come to Shimla and to contest the proceedings which have been instituted by the husband for divorce. 11. The only ground for transfer, which has been made in the petition, is that she has no independent source of income and she is unable to come to Shimla and being a lady she will be put to hardship, if she is compelled to attend the case at Shimla. 12. The said contention of the petitioner is falsified on account of the fact that she herself has filed two petitions before the Principal Judge(Family Court), Shimla. Once, the petitioner herself can institute proceedings against her husband at Shimla, then it is not understandable that why she cannot attend the proceedings in the divorce proceedings. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for the transfer of case from Shimla to Solan. Though, it is an admitted fact that as per the consistent law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that convenience of wife 5 has to be seen, but in the present case the facts of the case show that the petitioner herself has instituted proceedings at Shimla and now, she cannot say that in the case filed for divorce, she cannot come to Shimla. The stand as being adopted by the petitioner seems to be conflicting and dehors the law. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the Court below has granted 4,000/- each to the petitioner and her minor son, total amounting to Rs.8,000/- and apart from that, the Court below has further directed the respondent to make living arrangement for the petitioner with home furnishing or in the alternate to pay Rs.5,000/- for the accommodation. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent has provided the accommodation to the petitioner at Shimla, however she refused to come and stay at the said accommodation. Such act of the petitioner does not entitle her to get the relief of transfer in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has failed to carve out a case and show any inconvenience to come to Shimla to prosecute the case which has been filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act when she herself has filed two cases one under Section 125 of Cr.PC and another under the Domestic Violence Act, which are pending before the Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla. Even 6 otherwise, the petitioner is free to attend the proceedings of the case through a mode of Video Conferencing and there is no averment made in the petition that despite effort she has not been able to do so. 14. Consequently, the petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to seek hearing from the family Court, Shimla through Video Conferencing. Needless to say that, in case such a prayer is made by the petitioner, she will be allowed to join proceedings through video conferencing. 15. Petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any. (Romesh Verma) Judge 30th March, 2026 (vt)