IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.482 of 2025 Decided on 30th October, 2025 Smt. Priyanka …Petitioner Versus Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Tanu Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondent: Mr. Dila Ram, Special Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent is present in person. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That the case No.34 of 2025, titled as Sandeep Chaudhary v. Priyanka, filed for dissolution of Marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, pending before the learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Shimla, H.P. may kindly be transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has filed a case against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is presently pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge Family (Shimla). The marriage between 2 the parties is stated to have been solemnized on 29.10.2009. According to the petitioner, she was accused of adultery in the month of October, 2020 and was made to leave her matrimonial house under distress and coercion. Thereafter, she is residing at her parental house in Hamirpur. The petitioner is stated to be unemployed. She does not has any personal source of income and is financially unsound and is dependent upon her aged parents. She has no independent means of likelihood and is residing at village Khuban, P.O. Amroh, District Hamirpur, H.P., and in these circumstances she has prayed that as it is not feasible for her to defend herself in the proceedings which have been initiated against her at Shimla, the case be transferred to Hamirpur. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed and the father of the respondent, who states to be the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent has resisted the transfer petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petition has not been filed under the correct provision of law and further that the case has been put up before the Court in a twisted manner and false averments have been made in the petition and no case is made out for the 3 transfer of the case. 4. 4. Having heard learned Legal Aid Counsel as well as the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that as it has not been proved to be contrary that the petitioner has no independent source of income and that she is dependent upon her parents for her day to day needs and is just surviving upon their mercy as well as the maintenance which is being given to her by the husband, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, these proceedings are ordered to be transferred from Shimla to Hamirpur, as prayed for. 5. One more fact which is persuading the Court to pass this order is that the tone and tenor of the reply that has been filed to the petition itself is so adversarial and so contentious that this Court is of the view that it would be extremely intimidating for the petitioner to come and defend herself herein Shimla, which happens to be the place of her in laws. Incidentally, the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent is the father in law of the petitioner and the way he levelled accusation against the petitioner in the open Court further persuades this Court to 4 transfer the same to the place of the residence of the petitioner so that she can defend herself in a congenial environment. 6. In view of the above, the petition is, accordingly, allowed and the case filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending adjudication before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla, H.P., is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, H.P. The Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Legal Aid Counsel. She be paid full fee, payable in a case. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 30, 2025 (Vinod)