2025:HHC:41884 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO NO.1051 of 2025 Reserved on 18.11.2025 Decided on : 04.12.2025 Aditi Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Akash Garg ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate vice, Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking transfer of the case titled “Aditi Gupta vs Akash Garg” filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shimla, H.P., to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. 2025:HHC:41884 2. It has been asserted that a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shimla, H.P., which is pending disposal. The petitioner is employed as a Junior Office Assistant (IT) with HPSIDC and was transferred from Shimla to Nahan. She is residing at Nahan along with her minor son, and she is unable to visit Shimla to continue the proceedings. There is no one to look after her minor child; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petition be transferred to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan. 3. Ms Rajni Gandhi, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the Domestic Incident Report was instituted at Shimla because the petitioner was residing at Shimla. She has been transferred to Nahan, and it is very difficult for her to travel to Shimla to pursue the petition filed by her; hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the DIR be transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan. She relied upon the judgments of this Court in Privika Chandel v. Bhanu Pratap, CMPMO No. 355 of 2021, decided on 1.8.2023, Smt. Radha Vs. Guler Singh, 2025:HHC:41884 CMPMO No. 309 of 2023, decided on 21.8.2023, Sapna Devi Kumari Vs. Dr Diwakar, CMPMO No. 363 of 2023, decided on 2.9.2024 and Monika Sharma Vs. Abhishek Gautam, CMOMO No. 662 of 2024, decided on 16.12.2024 in support of her submission. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. It is undisputed that the petitioner herself filed a petition at Shimla. She claims transfer of the petition to Nahan because of her transfer vide order dated 24.9.2023. First, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner kept waiting for two years before seeking the transfer of the petition. Secondly, the petition has been filed on the grounds of the convenience of the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 508 that mere inconvenience or hardship faced by a person from travelling from one place to another is no ground for transfer. It was observed:- “65. For the purpose of transferring any case or proceedings under Section 406 of the Cr. P.C., the case must fall within the ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. 2025:HHC:41884 Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. The case must fall within any of the five situations as narrated in para 49 of this judgment. It is always open for the petitioner accused to pray for exemption from personal appearance or request that the Court that him may be permitted to join the proceedings online.” 6. The judgments in Privika Chandel (supra), Smt. Radha (supra) and Sapna Devi (supra), and Monika Sharma (supra) are concerned with the transfer of the cases which were instituted by the husband against the wife, and it was held by this Court that the convenience of the wife is to be considered while determining the place of adjudication. In the present case, the petition was not filed by the husband but by the wife; therefore, she chose the place of suing herself. She cannot seek transfer of the petition because of her transfer. It was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in xxxx vs xxxx 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 364 that the wife’s petition cannot be transferred on her transfer. It was observed: “In case if wife in question is employed in a transferable job, she cannot be permitted to seek transfer nay repeated transfer(s) of the matrimonial-related litigation(s) if her job results in her being transferred from one place 2025:HHC:41884 to another. The latitude required to be exercised in favour of a wife, while dealing with the plea for transfer of a matrimonial dispute, cannot be stretched to such an extent that the Court is approached for transfer of such matrimonial-related litigation at the mere asking of the wife.” 7. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the transfer of the petition filed by her on the ground of her transfer. 8. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 04th December, 2025. (meera)