1 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.538 of 2025 Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 Jyoti ...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Dhiman ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advoate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral The present petition has been filed by the petitioner wife for the transfer of the case petition No. 117 of 2025 filed by the respondent for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending before the learned Principal Judgde Family Court, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. to the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Nalagarh,Solan H.P. 2. It has been contended and averred in the petition that the petitioner filed a formal complaint before the Women Police Station, Baddi against the respondent, however, in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) counterblast to the said petition, respondent has filed the petition bearing No. 117 of 2025 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The copy of the petition has been appended with the present case. It has been averred that the respondent in order to harass the petitioner has filed the said petition The petitioner has contended in the petition that it is very difÏcult to the petitioner to contest the said proceedings. Since the distance between Rampur Bushahr to Nalagarh is more than 230 k.m. It has been averred that presently she is residing at Nalagarh, therefore, keeping in view the family circumstances and the distance, it will be in the fitness of the things that the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is transferred to the Court of learned Family Court,Nalagarh. 3. On the other hand, the prayer of the present petitioner has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent by contending that the present proceeding have been filed by the petitioner by concealing the facts. He submits that his wife the present petitioner is a respectable lady and she has got all the mean and facilities in life and she can certainly travel from Nalagarh to Rampur Bushahr to attend proceedings filed by him under 3 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. He further submits that he is ready to arrange residence and bear the travel expenses of the petitioner from Nalagarh to Rampur Bushahr. 4. The present petitioner has approached this Court for the transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent from the Court of learned Principal Judge Family Court Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr to the learned Family Court at Nalagarh. 5. Since, the present petition is primarily filed for the transfer of the 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. 6. While dealing with the issue of transfer of proceedings from one Court to another in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is ordinarily to be preferred, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 41, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in case where wife seeks transfer of the petition then as against the husband, convenience of wife must be looked at. 7. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 237, it has been held 4 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) that in a case seeking transfer of the case at the instance of the wife, it was specifically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the convenience of the wife was the prime consideration. 8. While dealing with the application for transfer of the proceedings in Kulwindere Kaur alias Kulwinder vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (2008) 3 SCC 659, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after analyzing the provisions of Section 24 and 25 of C.P.C laid down certain parameters for transfer of the case and it was held as under: “23 Reading Sections 24and 25of 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 plaintiff or 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 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.” 5 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) 9. In Aarti Rani @ Pinki Devi and another vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta (2008) 9 SCC 353, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case where the wife has sought transfer of the proceedings on the ground that it is difÏcult for her to attend the Court on Palamu, Daltonganj which is within the State of Jharkhand and is at a quite distance from Patna where she was residing with her child. Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife proceedings were ordered to be transferred. 10. Similarly in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani vs. Ashok Kishan Chand Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374, whereby she sought the transfer of the case to Bombay from Indore in M.P. on the ground of inconvenience as there was none in the family to escort her to Indore and on this ground the proceedings were ordered to be transferred. 11. In Civil Appeal No (s)4894 of 2022 arising out SLP (C) No(s). 16465 of 2021, titled as NCV Aishwarya vs. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has out line the cardinal principle for considering prayer for transfer of the proceedings from one Court 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 6 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) 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” 12. Taking into consideration, the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cardinal principle out lined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi NCV Aishwarya cases, this Court is of the considered view that present petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons that the present petitioner is a permanent resident of Nalagarh and the respondent has filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal right at Rampur Bushahr, which is at a considerable distance of more than 230 k.m. 13. The petitioner has averred that it is difÏcult for her to travel at such a distant place and she is having financial constraints. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband has initiated the proceedings at Rampur Bushahr to harass her. 7 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) 14 Similar issue praying for the transfer of proceedings from one Court to another Court, has been dealt with by this Court in CMPMO No. 466 of 2020, titled Monu vs Rakesh Kumar dated 26.07.2020 and other matters i.e CMPMO No. 604 of 2023, titled Manisha Thakur vs. Aakash Chauhan, decided on 05.12.2023 and in CMPMO No. 688 of 2023, titled as Sumita Chandel Parvesh dated 10.01.2024 in the following manner. “ 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 5 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.” 15. In the matter having similar facts and situation, this Court has allowed the transfer of the proceedings on the request of the wife in CMPMO No. 706/2023, titled as Chandni Versus Rajeev Pathik, decided on 04.11.2024. 16. In view of the above discussion and the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in petition No. 117 of 2025 filed by the respondent under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 in the Court of Learned Principal Judge, Family Court at 8 ( 2026:HHC:5578 ) Kinnaur, Division at Rampur Bushahr are ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court Nalagarh, Solan, H.P. The parties shall appear before the family Court Nalagarh on 30.03.2026 . 17. It is made clear that the learned Family Court shall not issue any notice to the parties and they shall remain present on the date fixed before the Family Court, Nalagarh. The learned Family Court shall proceed in the matter from the stage learned Family Court at Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr was dealing with the case. 18. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 26.02.2026 (veena)