( 2025:HHC:22198 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 442 of 2024. Reserved on: 3 rd July, 2025. Decided on : 10 th July, 2025. Khushbu Banshtu .. Petitioner. Versus Digvijay Banshtu ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. B.L. Soni, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. This petition has been filed with a prayer to transfer case No. 88-R/2 of 2023, titled as Digvijay Banshtu vs. Khushbu Banshtu from the files of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohru to the files of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:22198 ) 2. The petition sought to be transferred is the petition filed by the respondent/husband for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The petitioner/wife is seeking transfer of the divorce petition on the ground that she is residing at Zirakpur in Punjab along with her daughter, who is studying in Little Angel School, Vasant Vihar, Zirakpur. The parents of the petitioner are resident of Village Anandpur near Shoghi, Tehsil Rural Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. and for such reason it will be convenient for her to attend the proceedings of the case at Shimla. The petitioner has also expressed difficulty in visiting Rohru along with her daughter, firstly, for want of convenience and secondly, fearing for their safety. It is alleged that the respondent had made an attempt to take forcible custody of girl child at Zirakpur and the petitioner had reported the matter to the police by filing a complaint. It is alleged that the said incident created an atmosphere 3 ( 2025:HHC:22198 ) of fear and according to her atmosphere at Rohru is not conducive for divorce proceedings as there was insecurity and threat to her life. 4. The respondent/husband has opposed the prayer and filed the reply. He has denied the allegations levelled in the instant petition. It has been submitted that the respondent is holding the rank of a Major in the Indian Army and since, the respondent is not able to personally supervise the prosecution of his case due to nature of duties, he had filed the petition at Rohru to enable his family members to supervise proper prosecution of the case. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the material placed on record, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for transfer of the petition from Rohru to Shimla for the reasons detailed hereafter. 6. The contention of the petitioner that she is unable to contest the proceedings at Rohru due to 4 ( 2025:HHC:22198 ) financial constraints does not appear to be genuine. The petitioner has admitted that she has hired a residential accommodation at Zirakpur on payment of rent @ Rs.21,000/- per month. She is also getting her daughter educated at Zirakpur. Presumably, the petitioner is not without regular source of income. Even otherwise, the divorce petition is pending at Rohru since 2023 and the petitioner has not shown any special circumstance that has prompted her to file the instant petition belatedly. 7. The petitioner, if so desires, can join proceedings through video conferencing. 8. Merely, because it is convenient for the petitioner to attend the proceedings at Shimla, the order of transfer cannot be made. The convenience of wife cannot be the sole ground to order the transfer of proceedings. The balance has to be maintained vis-a-vis the rival claims of the parties. 9. It is not the case, where the Family Court at Rohru does not have jurisdiction to decide the divorce 5 ( 2025:HHC:22198 ) petition filed by the respondent/husband. The plea raised by the respondent that he will not be in a position to prosecute the divorce petition properly at any other place also appears to be genuine and justified. 10. As regards the threat perception shown by the petitioner, except for a complaint filed by her, no other tangible material has been placed on record to infer the genuineness of such perception. It is not shown that the respondent has either been indicted or proceeded against on the complaint filed by the petitioner/wife. Moreover, the apprehension of petitioner with respect to insecurity at Rohru otherwise also appears to be baseless as no incident having taken place at Rohru has been alleged or highlighted. 11. In result, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to join proceedings through video conferencing, if so required, except when her physical presence is required in the Court. 6 ( 2025:HHC:22198 ) Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th July, 2025. (jai)