1 2026:HHC:29021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 718 of 2026 Reserved on: 8.7.2026 Date of Decision: 16.7.2026. Ankita …. Petitioner Versus Peeyush Mahajan & ors. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Virender Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr George, Advocate. For the Respondents : Nemo. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for transfer of proceedings pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., under Sections 12 and 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), Chamba, to the Court having jurisdiction at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29021 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. She had filed an application under Sections 12 and 18 of the DV Act in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, H.P. The respondent No. 1 filed another petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against the petitioner in the Court of learned District Judge, Chamba. This petition has already been transferred by this Court in a case titled Ankita Vs. Peeyush Mahajan, CMPMO No. 561 of 2025, decided on 11.05.2026. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.06.2021 at Chamba town. The relationship between the parties was strained after the marriage, and the petitioner had to leave her matrimonial home. She had to file the petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, HP, to protect herself. The petitioner recently got a job in Chandigarh. She is not in a position to attend to the cases at Chamba. The distance between Chamba and Chandigarh can be covered within 9 to 10 hours, and the petitioner does not have any companion to take her to Chamba. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the case be transferred from Chamba to the Court at Nalagarh. 3 2026:HHC:29021 3. Mr Virender Kumar, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is unable to travel to Chamba without any companion. She is employed in Chandigarh, and she would be unable to pursue her case at Chamba. Another case filed against her by respondent No.1 has been transferred to Nalagarh. It would be convenient for both parties if the present case were also transferred to Nalagarh. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petition pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, be transferred to the Court at Nalagarh. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had herself filed the petition under the DV Act before the Court at Chamba. She claimed that she was transferred to Chandigarh and therefore she is unable to visit Chamba to pursue her petition. She has placed on record the appointment order (Annexure P2) showing that she was appointed as a Tele Caller on 17.07.2025. She has not explained why she kept waiting for about one year before filing 4 2026:HHC:29021 the present petition for transfer. The delay in approaching the Court will disentitle her from the relief. 6. She has filed the present petition on the grounds of her convenience. 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”. 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.” 7. A heavy reliance was placed upon the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide which the petition for divorce pending before the learned District Judge, Chamba, was transferred to the learned Principal Judge, (Family Court), Nalagarh. However, the petition was filed by respondent 5 2026:HHC:29021 No.1/husband and not by the present petitioner. Thus, no assistance can be derived from this judgment. 8. In the present case, the petitioner had herself chosen the place of swing. She cannot seek the transfer simply because she has got the employment at Chandigarh. 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 the wife in question is employed in a transferable job, she cannot be permitted to seek transfer, or repeated transfer(s) of the matrimonial-related litigation(s) if her job results in her being transferred from one place 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.” 9. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the transfer of the petition on the ground of getting employment at Chandigarh. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 6 2026:HHC:29021 12. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th July, 2026 (Chander)