IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 561 of 2025 Decided on :11.05.2026 Ankita ...Petitioner. Versus Peeyush Mahajan & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. George, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife for the transfer of the divorce proceedings, filed under the provisions of Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent/husband in the Court Learned Principal Judge [Family Court], Chamba, District Chamba, HP, to Principal Judge [Family Court] Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments as made in the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. She had filed petition under Sections 12 and 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said petition is pending in the Court of learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Principal Judge [Family Court], Chamba, District Chamba, HP. One another petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance is pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge [Family Court], Chamba, District Chamba, HP In counter blaster to the said proceedings, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It has been stated in the petition that immediately after the marriage the relation between the parties remain strained. 3. The instant petition has been filed for the transfer of the divorce petition bearing registration No. 32 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023. It has been stated that petitioner is a qualified woman and she has been harassed by the respondent. She has no independent source of income and recently she has got a private job in Chandigarh. She wants to become self dependent, so that she may be able to live her life with dignity and self- honour. She has stated that on account of her temporary job in Chandigarh, she is not in a position to take leave so frequently to attend her cases at a far flung area of District Chamba, HP. Due to the financial and other constraints, she is not in a position to travel to such a considerable distance, which is more than 300 kms. Since the petitioner is staying alone at Chandigarh on account of her job, she has got no support either from 3 respondent or from his parents and it is very unsafe for a single lady to travel from Chandigarh to Chamba for each and every hearing. Under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed for transfer of the divorce petition from the Court of learned Principal Judge [Family Court], Chamba, District Chamba, HP to learned Principal Judge [Family Court] Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Though, in the petition prayer has been made for the transfer of three cases, one petition under Sections 12 & 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, and another case under Section 125 of Cr. P.C., however, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present petition he shall restrict his claim only qua the transfer of divorce proceedings. For the transfer of other cases, petitioner shall take recourse to law separately. 4. The present petition is primarily for the transfer of the divorce proceedings. Therefore, without touching merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted. 5. Upon issuance of notice, Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel appeared for the respondent and he has opposed the said prayer of the petitioner. He has submitted that keeping in view the conduct of the present petitioner, no relief can be 4 granted to her and the averments as made in the petition are imaginary and incorrect. 6. While dealing with the issue of transfer of proceedings from one court to another in matrimonial matters, the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of husband, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001) 10 SCC 41, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a case where the wife seeks transfer of the petition, then as against husband’s convenience, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at. 6(i) In Soma Choudhury v. Gourab Choudhaury (2004) 13 SCC 462, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the wife alleges that she has no source of income, whatsoever and was entirely dependent upon her parents, then it was the convenience of the wife which was required to be looked into and not that of the husband, who had pleaded a threat to his life. It was further observed that if the respondent therein had any threat to his life, he could take police help by making an appropriate application to this effect. 6(ii) In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, in a case seeking transfer of the case at the instance of the wife, it was specifically held by the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court that convenience of wife was the prime consideration. 6(iii) Similarly, while dealing with the application for transfer of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (2008) 3 SCC 659, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after analyzing the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure laid down certain broad parameters for transfer of cases and it was held:- “23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; “interest of justice” demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a “fair trial” in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order. 6 6(iv) In Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta (2008) 9 SCC 353, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the wife had sought transfer of proceedings on the ground that she was having a minor child and it was difficult for her to attend the Court at Palamu, Daltonganj, which was in the State of Jharkhand and at a quite distance from Patna where she was now residing with her child. Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, the proceedings were ordered to be transferred. 6(v) Similarly, in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani v. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374, the wife had sought transfer of the case to Bombay from Indore in Madhya Pradesh on the ground of inconvenience as there was none in her family to escort her to Indore and on this ground the proceedings were ordered to be transferred. 6(vi). In the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “In this type of matter, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. Hindu Marriage Petition No.6 of 2004, Kishor Babulal Pardeshi v. Rajani Kishor Pardeshi pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panvel, Mumbai, Maharashtra is transferred to the Family Court of proper jurisdiction at Satana, 7 6(vii). In Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022 [arising out of SLP(C) No(s).16465 of 2021], titled as N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined the cardinal principles for considering prayer for transfer of proceedings, from one Court-place to another, in matrimonial matters, in following terms:- “8. It is not disputed that the appellant is the resident of Chennai and that the appellant’s husband- respondent herein is the resident of Vellore and he is employed. The appellant who is 21 years old does not have any source of income of her own as she is not employed and is totally dependent on her parents for her livelihood. In order to attend the court proceedings of the case filed by her husband at Vellore she has to travel alone all the way from Chennai to Vellore as her parents are not in a position to accompany her on account of their old age. Secondly, the appellant has also filed a petition, H.M.O.P. No.1741 of 2021, for restitution of conjugal rights and another petition, M.C. Sr. No.672 of 2021, for her maintenance before the Family Court at Chennai. 9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same 8 parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.” 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cardinal principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sumita Singh, Rajani Pardeshi and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s cases [supra], this Court is of considered view, that the present petition deserves to be allowed, for the reasons, that firstly, the petitioner is residing at Chandigarh, which is at a distance of more than 300 k.m. from Chamba. It has been averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, that the petitioner has got no independent source of income and recently she had got a temporary job in Chandigarh and it would not be possible to her to reach Chamba on each and every date in the said proceedings. She has further stated in the petition that her parents are residing at Chamba. Therefore, she cannot travel alone to a distant place. 8. A similar issue, praying for transfer of proceedings from one Court to another, has been dealt with in CMPMO No.466 of 2020, titled as Monu versus Rakesh Kumar, decided on 26.07.2023 and in other matters i.e. CMPMO No.604 of 2023, titled as Manisha Thakur versus Akash Chauhan, decided on 9 05.12.2023 and in CMPMO No.688 of 2023, titled as Sumiti Chandel versus Parvesh Singh, decided on 10.01.2024, in following terms:- “6. In view of the mandate of law referred to above, and the no objection accorded by the learned counsel for the respondent herein; the present petition is allowed and H.M. Misc. Petition No. 351 of 2023, titled as Parvesh Singh Vs Sumiti Chandel, pending before the Additional Principal Judge Family Court Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh is ordered to be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent Judgment dated 07.04.2026, titled Saloni Walia vs. Rajat Walia ordered the transfer of the case from the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the said petition and directed to transfer of the said petition, as prayed for, in the said case. 10. In a matter having similar facts and situation, this Court has allowed the transfer of proceedings on request of wife, in CMPMO No.706 of 2023, titled as Chandni versus Rajeev Pathik, decided on 04.11.2024, in following terms:- “8.In view of the above discussion and for the reasons, recorded herein-above, the present petition is allowed; and the proceedings i.e. HMA No.179-S/3 of 2023, titled as Rajeev Pathik versus Chandni, pending before the Court of Learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla (HP) are ordered to be transferred to the Court of Learned Principal Judge [Family Court] Mandi, District Mandi [HP].” 10 11. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons, recorded herein-above, the present petition is allowed, and the proceedings i.e. HMA Reg. No. 32 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023, [as in Annexure P-1] titled as Peeyush Mahajan vs. Smt. Ankita, pending before the Court of Learned Principal Judge [Family Court], Chamba, District Chamba, HP are ordered to be transferred to the Court of Learned Principal Judge [Family Court] Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 12. Consequent upon the directions contained here-in- above, Registry is directed to inform the Court of Learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Chamba, District Chamba, HP to transfer entire case records of HMA Reg. No. 32 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023, [as in Annexure P-3] titled as Peeyush Mahajan vs. Smt. Ankita to the Court of Learned Principal Judge [Family Court] Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. within two weeks from today; with further directions to the Court of Family Court, Nalagarh, District Solan,H.P. to issue fresh notice(s) to the parties and then to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. 13. As contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has already availed various opportunities for concluding /leading the evidence, therefore, 11 learned Family Court, Nalagarh is directed to expedite the matter and to take the same to its logical end. 14. The instant petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. (Romesh Verma) Judge May 11, 2026 (Nisha)