2026:HHC:27519 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 296 of 2026 Date of decision: 06.07.2026. Payal ...Petitioner. Versus Vinay Kumar ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition has been filed by the present petitioner/wife for transfer of petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short, ‘Act’), by the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Bilaspur to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Chamba, H.P. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage inter-se the parties was solemnized on 26.04.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner stayed in the house of the respondent and discharged her matrimonial obligations to the best of her ability. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent kept and treated her properly for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- about one year after the marriage, however, thereafter, the behavior of the respondent started changing towards the petitioner with the passage of time. The respondent under the influence of liquor started maltreating, misbehaving and treating the petitioner with cruelty. The respondent used to give severe beatings to the petitioner every off and on. The respondent also started depriving the petitioner from maintenance and other basic necessities of life and started to proclaim that the petitioner is not of his choice and he has married her by mistake. After giving beatings, the respondent used to turn the petitioner out from his house. In these circumstances, the petitioner was forced to take shelter in her matrimonial house and her parents used to maintain her and provide her all the basic necessities of life. That she is residing presently at Chamba. 3. As per case of the petitioner, she filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC for grant of maintenance due to respondent’s neglect of familial duties including maintenance. The petition for grant of maintenance came to be allowed by the learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Chamba vide judgment dated 06.07.2024. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that due to lack of sufficient income, the petitioner was facing hardship in -3- attending the court proceedings at Bilaspur. The parents of the petitioner having limited means are unable to bear financial burden required by the petitioner to attend the hearings of the case before the court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Bilaspur. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petition, which has been instituted by the husband under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, titled as, Vinay Kumar vs. Payal, HMMP No. 100 of 2024 be transferred to the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Chamba, H.P. 5. Notice in the petition was issued to the respondent on 16.06.2026. Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He has opposed the aforesaid prayer as made by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court for transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband primarily on the ground that the distance from Chamba to Bilaspur is more than 450 k.m. and it would not be possible for her to travel for such a considerable distance to attend the court proceedings on each and every date. She has submitted in her pleadings that due to lack of sufficient income and on account of financial constraint of the parents of -4- the petitioner, it is difficult for her to come Bilaspur and attend the case hearings of petition filed under Section 9 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the respondent neglected her and did not maintain her, she was constrained to file petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and that came to be allowed by the learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Chamba, on 06.07.2024. Further, he submits that in counter blast to the said judgment, the petition under Section 9 of the Act came to be instituted by the present respondent. 8. Since the petitioner has filed the present petition primarily for the transfer of the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act, therefore, without touching the merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted. 9. 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 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 -5- husband’s convenience, it is the wife’s convenience, which must be looked at. 10. 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. 11. 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 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 -6- 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”. 12. 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. 13. 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 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. -7- 14. 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 -8- 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.” 15. 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 Chamba, which is at considerable distance of more than 450 km from Bilaspur and on account of financial constraints as have been depicted and shown in the petition, it will be in the interest of justice that the petition, which has been filed by the respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Act is transferred from Family Court, Bilaspur to the Family Court, Chamba. 16. 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, -9- 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. 17. 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. H.M. Misc. Petition No. 100 of 2024, titled as Vinay Kumar vs. Payal, pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Bilaspur are ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Chamba. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Chamba, District Chamba, on 22.07.2026. 18. It is made clear that the learned Family Court, Chamba, shall not issue any notice to the parties and they shall remain present on the date fixed before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court, Chamba, shall proceed in the matter from the stage learned Family Court at Bilaspur was dealing with the case. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of, accordingly. (Romesh Verma) Judge 6th July, 2026. (kck)