CMPMO/97/2026 on 3 August 2026

2026:HHC:32454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 97 of 2026

Date of decision: 03.08.2026. Seema Devi

...Petitioner.

Versus Hemant Kumar Sharma

...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Dhale Ram, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The present petition has been filed for transfer of divorce proceedings i.e. HMA No. 201 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr.

2. As per averments as made in the petition, it has been stated that the parties got married as per Hindu rites and rituals on 08.11.2007. Out of the wedlock, one female child, namely Suhani, was born on 11.07.2009, at Kamla Nehru Maternity Hospital, Shimla. Since the respondent was not maintaining the petitioner and their daughter, Suhani,

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file an application for the grant of maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, which is pending adjudication before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur Bushahr, titled as, Seema Sharma & another vs. Hemant Sharma, bearing Case No. 144 BNSS/5/2024.

3. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, interim order has been passed in the said application and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- each has been granted to the wife and the daughter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in counterblast to those proceedings, the respondent filed a petition for the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) for dissolution of marriage before the learned Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Shimla, on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

4. It was averred in the petition that though the petitioner tried her level best to protect the matrimonial home, but the respondent has refused to maintain her and to live along with the petitioner and their daughter. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has willfully neglected the petitioner and their child by ill-treating and beating them, without any rhyme or reason.

5. As per the case of the petitioner, the respondent is habitual of stealing things from the neighborhood and for the said offense, he has remained in jail also. It has further been stated that the petitioner has no independent source of income and she cannot travel from Kumarsain to Shimla to attend each and every date of hearing. It is also the case of the petitioner that the distance of Family Court, Shimla from Kumarsain is more than 80 km and it is very difficult for her to travel to such a distant place.

6. As per case of the petitioner, she has to look after her daughter, namely Suhani, as she is a school going child. Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for transfer of the divorce proceedings, which have been initiated by the respondent in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, on the ground that since she is a permanent resident of Kumarsain, therefore, it will be convenient to her to go to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr, instead of coming to Shimla.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the distance from Shimla to Rampur is more than 130 km, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that the divorce proceedings pending in the Court of learned Family Court, Shimla be ordered to be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr.

8. The prayer as made by the petitioner is refuted and denied by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he tried to protect the marriage in all its best possible ways, however, the petitioner is not ready to live with the present respondent. He submitted that the petition which has been filed at Shimla is a centre place, as he is a resident of Solan and the petitioner can certainly come from Kumarsain to attend the hearing on each and every date, as the distance between Kumarsain and Shimla is only 80 km.

9. Since the petitioner has filed the present petition primarily for transfer of the divorce petition filed by the husband, therefore, without touching the merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted.

10. While dealing with the issue of transfer of proceedings from one court to another in matrimonial matters, the convenience of wife is ordinarily to be preferred over the convenience of husband, in view 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 husband’s convenience, it is the wife’s convenience, which must be looked at.

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

12. While dealing with the application for transfer of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (2008) 3 SCC 659, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after analyzing the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, laid down certain broad parameters for 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”.

13. 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 proceedings on the ground that she was having a minor child and it was difficult for her to attend the Court at Palamu, Daltonganj, which was in the State of Jharkhand and at a quite distance from Patna where she was now residing with her child. Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, the proceedings were ordered to be transferred.

14. 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 this ground the proceedings were ordered to be transferred.

15. In Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022 [arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 16465 of 2021], titled as N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined the cardinal principles for considering prayer for transfer of proceedings, from one Court-place 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 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. 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.”

16. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cardinal principles as outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sumita Singh, Rajani Pardeshi and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s cases (supra), this Court is of considered view, that the present petition deserves to be allowed, for the reasons, that the petitioner is residing at Kumarsain, which is at a considerable distance from Shimla and on account of hardship and financial constraints as have been depicted and shown in the petition, it will be in the interest of justice that the petition, which has been filed by the respondent/husband is transferred from Family Court, Shimla to the Family Court, Rampur Bushehr.

17. A similar issue, praying for transfer of proceedings from one Court to another, has been dealt with and answered in favour of the wife by this Court in CMPMO No. 466 of 2020, titled as Monu vs. Rakesh Kumar, decided on 26.07.2023, CMPMO No.604 of 2023, titled as Manisha Thakur versus Akash Chauhan, decided on 05.12.2023 and in CMPMO No. 538 of 2025, titled as, Jyoti vs. Rakesh Dhiman, decided on 26.02.2026.

18. In view of the above discussions and the exposition of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings i.e. HMA No. 201 of 2025, pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla are ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, on 21.08.2026.

19. It is made clear that the learned Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, shall not issue any notice to the parties and they shall remain present on the date fixed before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, shall proceed in the matter from the stage learned Family Court at Shimla was dealing with the case. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of, accordingly.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 3rd August, 2026. (kck)