2025:HHC:31859 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 718 of 2023 Decided on : 16.09.2025 Bindia Kumari …Petitioner Versus Satish Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner is praying for the transfer of HMA Petition No. 1453/2023 titled Sh. Satish Kumar Versus Bindia Kumari, filed by her husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kangra camp at Dehra to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Una, camp at Amb, District Una, H.P. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herself has initiated proceedings against the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31859 respondent, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which are presently pending at Amb. He further submitted that the petitioner is unemployed and is at the mercy of her parents and is residing with them. In these circumstances, he submitted that it is extremely difficult for the petitioner to defend herself in the proceedings initiated against her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Dehra. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the distance between Dehra and Amb is not all that much, the petitioner can always defend herself at Dehra, because it is not as if she has to remain present in person on each and every date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submitted that not only it is physically and monetarily difficult for the petitioner to defend herself at Dehra, otherwise also, as the respondent is a resident of Tehsil Dehra and her in-laws are also from Dehra, therefore also, it is intimidating for her to go to Dehra and defend herself. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the petition, this Court 3 2025:HHC:31859 is of the considered view that as the respondent is already defending himself in the proceedings initiated against him by the present petitioner at Amb, no prejudice would be caused to him if the present proceedings are also transferred from Dehra to Amb. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent qua distance is concerned, the same analogy applies to the respondent also. Meaning thereby, that in case, if according to the respondent, it is not all that inconvenient for the petitioner to travel to Dehra to defend the case, it would not be inconvenient to the respondent also to prosecute the proceedings filed by him at Amb. Further, learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that the petitioner is unemployed and has no source of income and is fully dependent upon her parents. 6. In light of above observations, this petition is allowed. HMA Petition No. 1453/2023 titled Sh. Satish Kumar Versus Bindia Kumari, is ordered to be transferred from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kangra camp at Dehra to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Una, camp at Amb, District Una, H.P. Pending miscellaneous 4 2025:HHC:31859 application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 16, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)