CMPMO/262/2026 on 9 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.262 of 2026

Date of decision:09.10.2026

Arti Kumari

...Petitioner

Versus Abhinit Thakur

...Respondent

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):

The instant petition has been filed for transfer of petition as filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights from the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Una.

2. It has been contended in the petition that the parties solemnized their marriage on 20.04.2025 and out of the wedlock, no child was born. After the marriage, on one pretext or the other, the respondent started picking quarrels with the present petitioner. It has also been stated that the parents of the respondent started demanding dowry from the petitioner and started harassing her mentally and Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

physically. The allegations of cruelty and harassment have been made out in the petition and it has been stated that on account of harassment meted out to the present petitioner, she was forced to leave the company of her husband and is now residing with her parents at Una.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, in order to harass her, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by the respondent in the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur. It is further contended by the petitioner that the distance from Hamirpur to Una is more than 90 kms and she has no financial means to travel from Una to Hamirpur on each and every date of hearing. As per the case of petitioner her father is providing all the basic necessities of life to her and that she has no independent source of income. Therefore, it would not be possible for her to travel to Hamirpur to attend the proceedings in the present matter.

4. Since the petition has primarily been filed for the transfer of petition for restitution of conjugal rights, therefore, without touching upon the merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted or not.

.

5. 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 over the convenience of the husband, in terms of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay and another, (2001) 10 SCC 41, wherein it was held that in a case where the wife seeks transfer of the petition, then as against the husband's convenience, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at.

6. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, it has been specifically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case seeking transfer of the case at the instance of the wife, the convenience of the wife is the prime consideration.

7. While dealing with the application for transfer of the proceeding in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, (2008) 3 SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after analysing the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the CPC, has laid down the broad parameters for the transfer of cases, and it was held as under: “23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of 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 the plaintiff or the 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.”

8. In Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another vs Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, (2008) 9 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the wife had sought transfer of the proceeding on the ground that she was having a minor child, and it was difficult for her to attend the Court at Palamu, which was in the State of Jharkhand and at a quite considerable distance from Patna, where she was residing with her child. Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, the proceedings were ordered to be transferred.

9. Similarly, in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani vs Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1374, the wife had sought transfer of the case to Bombay from Indore in Madhya Pradesh on the ground of inconvenience, as there was none in her family to escort her to Indore, and on that ground the proceedings were ordered to be transferred.

10. In Civil Appeal No. 4894 of 2022, titled N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined the cardinal principles for considering the prayer of transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another in matrimonial matters in the following manner: “8. It is not disputed that the appellant is the resident of Chennai and that the appellant’s 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 High Court of H.P 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.

9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.”

11. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cardinal principles of law as outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sumita Singh, Rajani Pardeshi and N.C.V. Aishwarya cases (supra) this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed for the reason that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Una and the respondent has instituted the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights at Hamirpur, which is at a distance of more than 90 kms. The petitioner has averred that it is difficult for her to travel to such a distant place and that she is having financial constraints.

13. In view of the above discussion and the exposition of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings in HMA No.58 of 2026, titled Abhinit Thakur vs. Arti Kumari, pending before the Court of the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur, are ordered to be transferred to the Court of the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Una. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Una, on 16.10.2026.

14. It is made clear that the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Una shall proceed with the matter from the stage at which the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur was dealing with the case in hand.

15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 9th October, 2026

(vt)