Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 967 (HP)

RANI DEVI v. MANOJ KUMAR

CMPMO/136/2025 · 2026-03-30

Virender Singh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:9416 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.   :      136 of 2025 Decided on : 30 th   March, 2026 Rani Devi …Petitioner Versus Manoj Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner       :  Ms. Prajwal Busta, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner Rani Devi has filed the present petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), for transfer of the petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  Act’)  and  case   under  the  provisions  of   Guardians   and Wards Act, pending adjudication before the Court of learned Principal   Judge   (Family   Court),   Bilaspur,   to   the   Court   of 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:9416 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the stand taken by the petitioner­wife, she was   married   to   respondent­husband,   in   January   2013,   at village Donglu, Post Office Namhol, Tehsil Sadar, Bilaspur. Marriage was duly consummated and the parties to the lis have been blessed with three daughters, aged about 12 years, 9 years and 6 years. 3. According   to   the   petitioner­wife,   thereafter,   the respondent­husband   allegedly   refused   to   maintain   the petitioner­wife and also started maltreating her. Thereafter, the respondent­husband had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, as well as, petition under Sections 24 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which is pending adjudication before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur. 4. The transfer of the petitions has also been sought on the ground that petitioner­wife has to look after two minor daughters, as third one is residing with respondent­husband. The   place,   where   the   lis   is   pending,   is   situated   at   a 3 2026:HHC:9416 considerable distance and it is difficult for the petitioner­wife to travel in order to attend the proceedings. 5. The   transfer   of   these   petitions   has   also   been sought on the ground that she is residing with her old aged parents, along with her two minor daughters and no one is there to take care of her old aged parents, as well as, the minor daughters. The financial crunch has also put forward as one of the grounds to transfer the petitions. 6. Along with the petition, photocopies of the petition instituted by the petitioner­husband under Section 9 of the Act, as well as, under Sections 24 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, seeking the custody of minor daughters, have also been annexed. 7. When   put   to   notice,   the   petition   has   been contested by the respondent­husband, admitting the factum of marriage, as well as, institution of above two petitions before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, however, the other allegations have been denied. In addition to this, he has also pleaded that it is the petitioner­wife, who had left the matrimonial home and according to the respondent­husband, 4 2026:HHC:9416 the petitioner­wife can not  be permitted to take benefit of her own wrong. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 9. The   factum   of   marriage,   as   well   as,   living separately, has not been disputed in the present case. 10. The parties to the lis, although, have been blessed with three daughters, but, compelled by the circumstances, now, they are litigating with each other. The  lis  has been instituted by the respondent­husband at Bilaspur, for which, the   petitioner­wife,   who   is   residing   in   village   Kotli,   P.O. Gunehar, Tehsil Baijnath, has been forced to contest the same, by attending the proceedings. 11. Considering the fact that the convenience of the wife   is   paramount   consideration,   in   such   type   of   matters, coupled   with   the   fact   that   whatsoever   pleaded   by   the petitioner­wife, in the petition, qua her financial inability to attend the Court proceedings, remained uncontroverted,  this Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be allowed. 5 2026:HHC:9416 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitions, bearing  No.1127/2024, and  163/2024, titled as Manoj   Kumar   versus   Rani   Devi,  pending   adjudication before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Bilaspur are transferred to the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 13. Learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), Palampur,   District   Kangra,   H.P.,   is   requested   to   proceed further, after securing the presence of both the parties. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Bilaspur, as well as, to the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., for compliance. ( Virender Singh ) March 30, 2026( ps ) Judge