2026:HHC:37540 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.        :       391 of 2026 Decided on : 3 rd   September, 2026 Chandha …Petitioner Versus Mukesh Kalyan …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner       :  Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent    : Mr.Devinder Chauhan Jeta, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner–Chandha has approached this Court, by way of the present petition, under Section 24(1)(a) of the Code of   Civil   Procedure   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   CPC’), seeking transfer of case, bearing HMA Petition No.152 of 2026, titled   as  Mukesh  versus  Chandha,  instituted   by   the respondent­husband,   before   the   Court   of   learned   Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla, District Shimla, to the Court of 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:37540 Additional   Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   Rohru,   District Shimla, H.P. 2. According to the petitioner­wife, she was married to respondent­husband, in the month of November 2023, as per Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter, they started living as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. The relations between   the   parties   remained   cordial   for   few   days   and thereafter, the behaviour of the respondent­husband suddenly changed. He had started quarreling with the petitioner­wife and started demanding divorce from her. 3. As   per   the   petitioner­wife,   respondent­husband kept on harassing her on one pretext or the other and she was thrown out from the matrimonial home and compelled to stay with her parents at their native place in village Karasa. 4. According   to   the   petitioner­wife,   thereafter,   the respondent­husband had filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for dissolution of marriage, on the basis of false and baseless   allegations,   before   the   Court   of   learned   Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla, District Shimla. 3 2026:HHC:37540 5. According to the petitioner­wife, the respondent­ husband has also filed a petition, under Section 9 of the Act before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohru, which is fixed for petitioner's evidence on 08.09.2026. According to her, she has also filed a complaint under the Domestic   Violence   Act,   2005,   which   is   pending   before   the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rohru, District Shimla. 6. According   to   the   petitioner­wife,   she   is   an unemployed lady, having no independent source of income and is wholly dependent upon her parents for her maintenance and day­to­day   expenses. As   such,   she   is   unable   to   bear   the travelling expenses from her native place to Shimla, which is about 145 kilometers. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition. 8. Heard. 9. Reply to the petition has not been filed, despite opportunity   granted,   however,   the   prayer,   as   made   in   the petition, has been opposed by tooth and nail. 4 2026:HHC:37540 10. Along with the present petition, the petitioner­wife has annexed the photocopy of the notice, received by her in the petition filed by the respondent­husband, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla. 11. The   respondent­husband,   has   not   filed   reply   to controvert the allegations, which have been levelled in the transfer application, but, opposed the prayer, as made, in the petition. 12. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Civil   Appeal No.4894 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.© No.16465 of 2021), titled as N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,   has   held   that   given  the   prevailing   socio­economic paradigm in the Indian Society, it is the wife’s convenience, which must be looked at, while considering transfer. It is apt for   this   Court   to   reproduce   paragraphs   9   and   10   of   the judgment, as under :­ “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 5 2026:HHC:37540 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 whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance   to   life. Given   the   prevailing   socio­ economic   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.” (self emphasis supplied) 13. Being   guided   by   the   above   decision   and considering the fact that the convenience of the respondent­ wife   is   paramount   consideration,   in   such   type   of   matters, coupled   with   the   fact   that   whatsoever   pleaded   by   the petitioner­wife, in the petition, remained uncontroverted,  this Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be allowed. 6 2026:HHC:37540 14. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the case bearing  HMA Petition No.152 of 2026, titled as  Mukesh versus  Chandha, pending adjudication before the Court of learned   Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   Shimla,   District Shimla   is   transferred   to   the   Court   of   learned   Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. 15. Learned   Additional   Principal   Judge,   Family Court, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., is requested to proceed further, after securing the presence of both the parties. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 17. A copy of this order be sent to the Court of learned Additional   Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   Rohru,   District Shimla, as well as, to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for compliance. ( Virender Singh ) September 03, 2026( ps ) Judge