2026:HHC:27520 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 212 of 2026 Date of decision: 07.07.2026. Simarn ...Petitioner. Versus Sanjeev Kumar ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. V. S. Rathore, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition has been filed by the present petitioner/wife for transfer of petition filed under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the respondent/ husband in the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Kangra at Dharmshala to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Kullu, H.P. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage inter-se the parties was solemnized on 16.06.2001 at MDDA Colony, Dalanwala, Tehsil and District Dehradun, Uttrakhand and out of the wedlock, two daughters namely Alisha @ Chahat on 26.06.2002 and Saniya on 01.01.2008 were born. As per 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- petitioner, she performed her marital duties and took care of the respondent but the latter started treating the petitioner with cruelty and even she had to file a case against the respondent. 3. The respondent in order to get rid of the petitioner and in order to harass her and the children instituted a petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Principal Judge (Family Court), Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P. In the said petition, as per petitioner the respondent has leveled false and frivolous allegations of cruelty and leaving the matrimonial house without any reason. It has been contended that the present petitioner was permanently residing in Dehradun, Uttarakhand but presently she is residing near Old Sabji Mandi, near Police Station Patlikuhal, VPO Patlikuhal, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 4. As per the case of the petitioner, she is facing financial constraints and she does not have any independent source of income. She has to look after her two children and the respondent has failed to maintain her in any manner. Now, in order to harass and prejudice the rights of the petitioner and children, the respondent has instituted the divorce petition in the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Kangra at Dharmshala, which is at a considerable distance of more than 230 km. from Kullu. -3- 5. The petitioner being alone lady, it will be very difficult for her to travel a considerable long distance to attend each and every hearing of the divorce proceedings. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that being unemployed lady, she has no source of income and she is dependent upon her parents. Therefore, the present petition has been filed for transfer of divorce petition from the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Kangra at Dharmshala to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Kullu, H.P. 6. Notice in the petition was issued to the respondent on 12.05.2026. Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He has opposed the aforesaid prayer as made by the petitioner. 7. Since the petitioner has filed the present petition primarily for the transfer of the divorce petition, therefore, without touching the merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted. 8. While dealing with the issue of transfer of proceedings from one court to another in matrimonial matters, the convenience of wife is ordinarily to be preferred over the convenience of husband, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble -4- Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001) 10 SCC 41, wherein it was held 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. 9. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, it has been specifically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a case seeking transfer of the case at the instance of the wife, convenience of wife is the prime consideration. 10. While dealing with the application for transfer of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs. 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 as under:- “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 -5- 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”. 11. In Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another vs. 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. 10 Similarly, in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374, the wife had sought transfer of the case to Bombay from Indore in Madhya -6- 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. 12. 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 -7- 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 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.” 13. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cardinal principles as 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 Patlikuhal, Kullu, which is at considerable distance of more than 230 km from Dharmshala and on account of financial constraints as have been depicted and shown in the petition, it will be in the interest of justice if the petition, which has been filed by the respondent/husband, under Section 13 (1) (i-a) -8- and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is transferred from Family Court, Kangra at Dharmshala to the Family Court, Kullu. 14. A similar issue, praying for transfer of proceedings from one Court to another, has been dealt with and answered in favour of the wife by this Court in CMPMO No.466 of 2020, titled as Monu vs. Rakesh Kumar, decided on 26.07.2023 and CMPMO No.604 of 2023, titled as Manisha Thakur versus Akash Chauhan, decided on 05.12.2023. 15. Similar issue of transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court has been decided by this Court in CMPMO No. 538 of 2025, titled as, Jyoti vs. Rakesh Dhiman, decided on 26.02.2026. 16. In view of the above discussions and the exposition of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings i.e. HMA No. 04 of 2026, titled as, Sanjeev Kumar vs. Simran, pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Kangra at Dharmshala are ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Kullu. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Kullu, District Kullu, on 29.07.2026. 17. It is made clear that the learned Family Court, Kullu, shall not issue any notice to the parties and they shall -9- remain present on the date fixed before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court, Kullu, shall proceed in the matter from the stage learned Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala was dealing with the case. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of, accordingly. (Romesh Verma) Judge 7th July, 2026. (kck)