2025:HHC:29655 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 664 of 2022 Decided on : 01.09.2025 Smt. Ravina Kumari …Petitioner Versus Sh. Dinesh Kumar. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of petition from Hamirpur to Sunder Nagar, filed by the respondent against her, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is presently pending adjudication before the learned Family Court, Hamirpur, H.P. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is unemployed. She is a 29 year old girl, who is presently staying with her parents at Sunder Nagar. He further 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29655 submitted that her parents belong to the BPL category and in such a situation, it is not possible for her to go and defend herself at Hamirpur. He further submitted that the respondent is serving as a Senior Relationship Manager at Punjab National Bank, Sujanpur, District Hamirpur and is earning a handsome salary and, therefore, in case, the case is ordered to be transferred from Hamirpur to Sunder Nagar, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. He further submitted that otherwise also, as the in-laws of the petitioner are in District Hamirpur, it is intimidating for her to go to Hamirpur to defend herself in the said proceedings. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent argued that no case has been made out by the petitioner for transfer of the case from Hamipur to Sunder Nagar. He submitted that the respondent is already paying the maintenance amount, as has been ordered by the Court and, therefore, as the distance between Hamirpur and Sunder Nagar is just 70 kms and as the respondent is only earning Rs.25,000/- approximately per month, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, in case, the case is tried at 3 2025:HHC:29655 Hamirpur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, submitted that till date only Rs.40,000/- in all, has been paid as maintenance amount by the respondent to the petitioner and the balance has not been paid. 5. Be that as it may, in light of the fact that learned Senior Counsel for the respondent could not dispute that the petitioner is unemployed and presently she is staying with her parents at Sunder Nagar and she has no source of income and is 100 per cent relying upon her parents for three times meal as well as shelter and as it is not in dispute that as the in-laws of the petitioner are also in District Hamirpur, this Court concurs with learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be in the interest of justice, in the facts of the case, if the matter is transferred from Hamirpur to Sunder Nagar because the petitioner shall be in a better position to defend herself at Sunder Nagar. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the matter is heard at Hamirpur, is also applicable to the respondent for the reason that as the respondent 4 2025:HHC:29655 undoubtedly is the earning hand, if according to him, travelling from Sunder Nagar to Hamirpur does not causes prejudice to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that if the respondent comes to Sunder Nagar to contest the petition filed by him, no prejudice will be caused to him also. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Case No. HMA Petition No. 236/2022, titled Sh. Dinesh Kumar Versus Raveena Kumari i.e. Annexure P-1, is ordered to be transferred from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur to the learned Family Court, Sunder Nagar. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)