Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/600/2025 of ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Vs POOJA SHARMA on 31 December 2025
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.600 of 2025 Decided on: 31.12.2025 Arvind Kumar Sharma … Petitioner Versus Smt. Pooja Sharma … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.600 of 2025 Decided on: 31.12.2025 Arvind Kumar Sharma
… Petitioner Versus Smt. Pooja Sharma … Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________
_
For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr.Gaurav Thakur, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the case, i.e. HMA No.55 of 2025, titled Pooja Sharma Versus Arvind Kumar Sharma, which has been filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of the marriage, which is presently pending before the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
2. The primary contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that because the respondent/wife is serving as a Staff Nurse at CHC Kataula, District Mandi, H.P., the case be transferred
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
to Mandi. He argued that otherwise also the parties have never resided together at Shimla at any point of time.
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent states that though the petitioner was serving as a Staff Nurse at Kataula, but now she has been promoted and is still awaiting her posting.
4. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that if it is convenient for the wife, irrespective of the fact as to where she may be serving to pursue the litigation which she has filed at Shimla, it is not for the petitioner to suggest as to where the litigation filed by the respondent should be tried. As it is a matter of record that the respondent is serving in the Health Department of the State Government, but natural, in the course of her service she may be transferred to various places and the same will not entail that with her transfer, the proceedings also have to be transferred to the same place.
5. Therefore, in this view of the matter, as this Court is of the considered view that there is no occasion for this Court to transfer the case from Shimla to Mandi, this petition is dismissed. As far as the contention of the learned Counsel that the petition has been filed before a wrong Fora is concerned, it is for the petitioner to raise this issue before the learned District Judge concerned, who obviously will decide the same as per law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge December 31, 2025 (Rishi)