2026:HHC:7944 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 563 of 2025 Date of decision : 17.03.2026. Kiran Bindu ...Petitioner. Versus Arun Sharma ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner wife has approached this Court for transfer of petition HMA No. 64 of 2025, titled as, Arun Sharma vs. Kiran Bindu, filed by the respondent-husband for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 in pending before the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (Family Court), Sarkaghat to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is permanent resident 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- of Hamirpur and presently she is working as Manager with Punjab National Bank, Branch at Panchkula (Haryana). The respondent has initiated divorce proceedings against the present petitioner in order to harass her. It is averred that out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent, one daughter born who is presently residing with the present petitioner and is being maintained by her. It has been further averred that it is very difficult for the petitioner to travel to the Court at Sarkaghat, District Mandi since she has to lookafter her minor daughter and further it is unsafe for her to travel to Sarkaghat, which is at a considerable distance of 45 k.m. 3. The notices were issued in the present case on 23.09.2025 and thereafter, the case was listed on 19.11.2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to take steps for the service of the respondent, as on the given address, he could not be served. Thereafter, this case was posted on 11.12.2025 whereby, further time was granted to the petitioner to take steps for the service of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve the respondent by issuing dasti notice to -3- him. As per report of the Registry, the present respondent was served through his father and as per the statement of the father, they are residing together in the same house. On 30.12.2025, one Mr. P.R. Patial, Advocate had appeared for the respondent and thereafter, at his request, the case was posted on 16.03.2026. On 16.03.2026, vice counsel Ms. Shivani Thakur appeared for the respondent and the matter was fixed for consideration today. 4. Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 5. Coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner has shown her inability to travel to the Court at Sarkaghat on account of long distance and the fact that the daughter of the parties is residing with the petitioner and as such, it is very difficult to leave her at Hamirpur and to travel to Sarkaghat. 6. It has further been averred that apart from the inconvenience on account of distance, if divorce petition is not transferred, in that event, the petitioner would not be able to bear the expenses, as the petitioner is also bearing the entire expenses of her minor daughter and no financial -4- or emotional support is there from the respondent to the petitioner. Being a female, it is difficult and inconvenient for her to travel to a considerable distance. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for transfer of divorce petition from the Family Court, Sarkaghat to the Family Court, Hamirpur. 7. The present petition is primarily for the transfer of the divorce proceedings. Therefore, without touching the merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted for transfer of the petition from one Court to another. 8. 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 & 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 -5- husband’s convenience, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at. 9. 9. 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, (supra), Rajni Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237 and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s vs. A.S. Saaravana karthik Sha, Civil Appeal No. 4894 of 2022 (arisisng out of SLP(C) No. 16465 of 2021), this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed, for the reasons, that firstly the petitioner is residing at Hamirpur and she has to lookafter her minor daughter. Further, Sarkaghat is at a considerable distance and the minor daughter of the petitioner is a student of 2nd standard at Hamirpur and thirdly, it has been pointed out that the entire expenses for the education and maintenance of the daughter are being borne by the petitioner at Hamirpur. Therefore, it will be difficult for her to travel to a distant place. 10. A similar issue, praying for transfer of proceedings from one Court to another, has been dealt -6- with in CMPMO No.466 of 2020, titled as, Monu vs. Rakesh Kumar, decided on 26.07.2023 and in other matters i.e. CMPMO No.604 of 2023, titled as, Manisha Thakur vs. Akash Chauhan, decided on 05.12.2023 and in CMPMO No.688 of 2023, titled as, Sumiti Chandel vs. 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.” 11. 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 vs. 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 -7- (HP) are ordered to be transferred to the Court of Learned Principal Judge [Family Court] Mandi, District Mandi [HP].” 12. 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. 64 of 2025, titled as, Arun Sharma vs. Kiran Bindu, pending before the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (Family Court) are ordered to be transferred to the Court of Learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 13. Consequent upon the directions contained hereinabove, Registry is directed to inform the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (Family Court) to transfer the entire case records of HMA No. 64 of 2025, titled as, Arun Sharma vs. Kiran Bindu to the Court of Learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. within two weeks from today; with further directions to the Court of Family Court, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. to issue fresh notice(s) to the parties and then to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. -8- 14. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. (Romesh Verma) Judge 17th March, 2026. (kck)