1 ( 2026:HHC:7947 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.696 of 2025 Date of Decision : 17.03.2026 Daman Bawa ...Petitioner Versus Harmandeep Bawa ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate, Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.09.2025, as passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in HMA No. 327 of 2018, titled as Daman Bawa vs Harmandeep Bawa, which reads as under: “An application has been tiled by Ld. Counsel for the respondent under Section 151 CPC. Copy supplied. Put up for filing reply and consideration on the next date of hearing. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:7947 ) The petitioner Daman Bawa, present in the court, is cross-examined by Id. Counsel for the respondent. During cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner was asking questions to the petitioner, while he was being cross-examined by Mrs. Neelam Jaryal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent, to which, I had objected that Ld. Counsel for the petitioner cannot ask questions, when his cross-examination is going on. On this, Ld. counsel for the petitioner got agitated and started raising his voice that Court cannot object. Thereafter, he left the court and despite being called many times, neither Ld. Counsel for the petitioner nor any junior appeared before the Court. After the cross-examination, I even told the petitioner that I do not want to try this case and to apprise me whether transferring of this court to Palampur was fine for petitioner as he belongs to Palampur, but he did not turn up. Therefore, due to the conduct of Ld. counsel for the petitioner and due to personal reasons, I do not want to try this case. Accordingly, it is hereby transferred under Section 4(1)(c) of Family Court Act to the Court of Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,Palampur. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Palampur, District Kangra on 14.10.2025. Civil Ahlmad is directed to send the case file to the concerned court forthwith.”. 3 ( 2026:HHC:7947 ) 2. During the course of arguments, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the Presiding Judge Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, has been transferred to some other Division. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 is quashed and set-aside. It is ordered that the divorce petition bearing No. HMA No. 327 of 2018 shall be tried by the very same Court i.e Principal Judge, Family Court Kangra at Dharamshala. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala shall try the matter in accordance with law on its own merit. 3. Learned Counsel for the parties undertake that both the parties shall appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharmashala on 28.04.2026 for further orders. In view of above, present petition stands disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 17.03.2026 (veena)