IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 5 of 2026 Decided on :03.06.2026 Nisha Rani ...Petitioner. Versus Sandeep Kumar ...Respondent. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Arun, Advocate, vice Ms. Kashish Bharota, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife for the transfer of the petition bearing HMA Reg. No. 345 of 2025, titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. Nisha Rani, filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband before the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), circuit at Amb, District Una, HP, to Principal Judge [Family Court] Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the parties got married in 2022. After residing together for some time, certain issues arose between them, as a result of which the present petitioner was forced to leave the respondent's house and was compelled to reside with her parents. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The petitioner instituted a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, along with an application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., against the cruelty being committed by the respondent. Apart from that, the petitioner was constrained to institute a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of the marriage between the parties. 4. The aforesaid proceedings are pending before the Principal Judge [Family Court], Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. It is contended by the petitioner that, as a counterblast to the aforementioned two petitions, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), circuit at Amb, District Una, HP in order to harass the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner is presently residing in a rented accommodation in Hamirpur along with her parents. It is not possible for her to travel to Amb to attend each and every date of hearing. The petitioner is posted as General Manager in Union Bank of India at Hamirpur. Therefore, she is not in a position to travel at a considerable distance, which is more than 75 kms, for each and every hearing. 3 5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent is financially well-placed and capable of attending proceedings at Hamirpur, whereas the petitioner keeping in view of her responsibility of old aged parents and job, would suffer grave hardship, if required to appear at Amb for the aforesaid case. Therefore, under such circumstances, the petitioner has sought the transfer of the petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), circuit at Amb, District Una, HP, to Principal Judge [Family Court] Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 6. Upon issuance of notice, Ms. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel appeared for the respondent and she has opposed the said prayer of the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner is financially strong lady and she can travel from Hamirpur to Amb and there is no impediment of her joining the proceedings at Family Court Amb. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The present petition is primarily for the transfer of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, without touching merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted. 4 9. 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. 10. 10. 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. 11. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court that convenience of wife was the prime consideration. 5 12. 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. 13. 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 6 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 7 petition, M.C. Sr. No.672 of 2021, for her maintenance before the Family Court at Chennai.” 16. 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 the petitioner is residing at Hamirpur which is at a distance of more than 70 k.m. from Amb and she cannot travel alone to a distant place. 17. 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 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.” 8 18. 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. 19. 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].” 20. 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. 345 of 2025, [as in Annexure P- 2] titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. Nisha Rani, pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), circuit at Amb, District Una, HP, are ordered to be transferred to Principal Judge [Family Court] Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 9 21. Consequent upon the directions contained here-in- above, Registry is directed to inform the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), circuit at Amb, District Una, HP to transfer entire case records of HMA Reg. No. 345 of 2025, [as in Annexure P-2] titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. Nisha Rani to the Court of Learned Principal Judge [Family Court] Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. within two weeks from today. The parties shall appear before the learned Principal Judge [Family Court] Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. on 06.07.2026. 22. It is made clear that the learned Family Court shall not issue any notice to the parties and they shall remain present on the date fixed before the Family Court, Hamirpur. The learned Family Court shall proceed in the matter from the stage, learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), circuit at Amb, District Una, HP was dealing with the case, in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge June 3, 2026 (Nisha)