( 2025:HHC:17856 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 685 of 2024. Decided on : 5 th June, 2025. Diksha ...Petitioner. Versus Vishal ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. By way of this petition, a prayer has been made for transfer of HMA case No. 152 of 2021, titled as Vishal vs. Diksha from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur. 3. Petition has been filed by the wife on the ground that she will face hardship and inconvenience, if the proceedings of HMA case No.152 of 2021 continue before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, whereby the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:17856 ) respondent/husband has sought a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is totally dependent upon her family for daily needs. She is unemployed and is facing financial hardship. The respondent has intentionally filed the petition for divorce before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur which is at a distance of about 60 kilometers from the house of parents of petitioner, where she is presently residing. It has also been submitted that the health of petitioner will suffer adversely in case she is to travel to Bilaspur to attend the case. She has also raised apprehensions and concerns about her safety while attending the proceedings before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur. 5. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay, (2001)10 SCC 41 and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 59 of 2015, titled as Krutika Ritesh Arya vs. Ritesh Laxman Arya. 6. The respondent/husband has contested the prayer. According to the respondent, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of her being lady. He has placed reliance 3 ( 2025:HHC:17856 ) upon the jdugment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anindita Das vs. Sirjit Singh, (2006)9 SCC 197. 7. In rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the facts detailed in the petition have been reiterated. In addition, it has been submitted that the mother of the petitioner has suffered serious ailment and one of her leg has been amputated recently. 8. Petitioner has mentioned her place of residence as Village Bhudhan, Post Office Perwin, Tehsil Dathwal (Bijhar), District Haimpur, H.P. There is specific averment made in the petition that the Bilaspur is at a distance of about 60 Kilometers from the said place. 9. Petitioner is seeking the transfer of the case from the Family Court at Bilaspur to Family Court at Hamirpur. Petitioner has not mentioned about the distance between her place of residence to Hamirpur. During the hearing of the matter when a query was put to this effect, the Court has been informed by both the sides that the distance between the place of residence of petitioner and Hamirpur is approximately 35 kilometers. Thus, one thing is clear that in case the petitioner intends to attend the hearing of the case personally, she will have to travel either to Bilaspur and if her prayer is allowed, to Hamirpur. There is nothing much to 4 ( 2025:HHC:17856 ) choose as there is marginal difference in distance between the two places from the place of residence of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband has categorically stated t before this Court during the hearing that the respondent is ready and willing to bear all the expenses of petitioner which will be incurred by her for contesting the litigation at Bilaspur. The statement of learned counsel for the respondent is taken on record. This takes care of the alleged financial constraints of the petitioner. 11. As regards the probable inconvenience to the petitioner, she has not been able to make out sufficient ground as I have already discussed about the distance she has to travel either to Bilaspur or Hamirpur. 12. Similarly, the difficulty shown by the petitioner on account of ailment of her mother will not serve her cause as she in either case has to travel to another place for attending the hearing of the case and for such purpose will have to make arrangements for attendance on her ailing mother. 13. I have also considered the judgments cited by both the sides. Though, the inconvenience, if any, of wife has to be weighed over the inconvenience of other side, yet there is no straight jacket formula in every case where the wife seeks 5 ( 2025:HHC:17856 ) transfer, the court is bound to do so. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. The apprehension raised by the petitioner about her safety again is without any supporting material. Without there being any substance in the allegation, it cannot be taken as a gospel truth. No past incident has either been quoted or shown to the Court, which may have given the reason to the petitioner to apprehend concerns about her safety. 15. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall have every right to claim expenses from respondent, as agreed to be paid by him. Needless to say that such expenses should be reasonable, realistic and on actual basis. Petition stands disposed of. 16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 5th June, 2025. (jai)