CMPMO/346/2026 on 3 August 2026

2026:HHC:32760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 346/2026

Decided on: 03.08.2026

Vandana Rana

…..Petitioner

Versus

Manoj Rana

…Respondent ______________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice RomeshVerma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the present petitioner/wife for the transfer of petition for grant of divorce filed by the respondent/husband in the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan, H.P. to the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P .

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage inter se the parties was solemnized on 14.08.2021 at Village Sunihara, Tehsil Baldwra, District Mandi, as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the wedlock, girl child was born on 23.11.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that after marriage, relation between the parties remained cordial for few days and thereafter behaviour of the respondent changed suddenly and he started quarrelling with the petitioner and demanding divorce. The respondent kept the petitioner harassing on one or other pretext. During the pregnancy of the petitioner, the respondent did not take care of her and she was compelled to stay with her parents at Sarkaghat. After birth of girl, the respondent did not turn up to look after the petitioner. Neither he maintained her and minor daughter nor he took any steps to enquire about their welfare. Shockingly, the petitioner received summons from the Court and came to know that he has instituted a petition for dissolution of marriage against her before the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a government employee and presently she is residing with her old aged parents at Village

Sunihara, Tehsil Baldwra, District Mandi and the distance from Solan to Sarkaghat is more than 155 kms and it is very difficult for her to keep minor daughter at home and come alone to travel to such a considerable distance in order to attend each and every hearing at Solan. It is further contended, as also averred in the petition, that the petitioner has apprehension that there may be threat to her life from the respondent while travelling to Solan for hearing of the case because the respondent himself is a practicing Advocate at District Court, Solan. Therefore, she has sought indulgence of this Court for transfer of divorce proceedings, as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded and submitted that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed.

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

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 terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. 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.

In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. 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.

While dealing with the application for transfer of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. 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.

In Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another v. 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.

Similarly, in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani v. 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.

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.”

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 presently the petitioner along with her minor daughter is residing with her old aged parents at Village Sunihara, Tehsil Baldwra, District Mandi, whereas the respondent has filed petition for dissolution of Marriage before Family Court, at Solan, which is about 155 KMs from Sarkaghat and it is very difficult for her to keep minor daughter at home and travel to attend each and every hearing at Solan, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has apprehended threat to her life at the hands of the respondent, who is practicing Advocate at Solan.

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 versus Rakesh Kumar, decided on 26.07.2023 and CMPMO No.604 of 2023, titled as Manisha Thakur versus Akash Chauhan, decided on 05.12.2023.

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.54/2026, titled as Manoj Rana vs. Vandana Rana pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan, H.P. are transferred to the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Sarkaghat, District Mandi.

The parties shall appear before the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Sarkaghat, District Mandi on 24.08.2026.

It is made clear that the learned Family Court at Sarkaghat shall not issue any notice to the parties and they shall remain present on the date fixed before it. The learned Family Court at Sarkaghat shall proceed in the matter from the stage learned Family Court at Solan was dealing with the case.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of, accordingly.

(Romesh Verma) 3rd August, 2026

Judge (pankaj)