Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Ramavati - Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Kumar - Respondent
CMPMO No. 720 of 2024
Decided On : 09-04-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Sharma.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Thakur.
The convenience of a party in transfer petitions is a consideration, but the paramount principle is the ends of justice, which must guide the court's decision.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 - Transfer of cases - Petition filed by wife for transfer of cases from Family Court Kinnaur to Family Court Shimla on grounds of convenience and distance - Court held that convenience of the wife is a factor but not the sole consideration; ends of justice must also be met - Petitioner, being a government official, does not face financial constraints and can attend hearings - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 10, 17)
(B) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Jurisdiction - Court within whose ordinary local jurisdiction the ward resides has jurisdiction - Petition under Section 25 of the Act was withdrawn by the respondent. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought transfer of cases filed by the respondent, alleging inconvenience due to distance. The respondent contested, stating the petitioner’s employment negated claims of hardship. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the need for justice over mere convenience. The petitioner can utilize video conferencing for hearings. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: Whether the convenience of the petitioner warranted the transfer of cases and the implications of the child's age on dependency. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the convenience of the wife is a consideration, the paramount principle is the ends of justice, which must guide the decision on transfer. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by petitioner/wife for transfer of following cases filed by respondent/husband from the files of learned Principal Judge Family Court Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar to the files of learned Principal Judge Family Court Shimla:-
i) Case No.3 of 2024, titled as Mukesh Kumar vs. Ramavati under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act;
ii) HMA No. 119 of 2024 titled as Mukesh Kumar vs. Ramavati under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.
2. Petitioner is praying for transfer of both the above cases on the ground that the petitioner is presently posted at Sunni in District Shimla. The minor son of the petitioner is residing with her and is presently a student of 9th standard. The distance from Sunni to Rampur Bushahar is approximately 90 Kms., whereas the distance between Sunni and Shimla is about 45 Kms. and for such reason, it will be more convenient for the petitioner to contest the petitions filed by the respondent at Shimla.
3. The prayer of the petitioner has been contested by the respondent by alleging that the petitioner is serving in Police department and as such cannot complain of financial constraints. As regards the comparison of distance between Sunni and Rampur Bushahar vis-à-vis Sunni and Shimla, the same is not of much significance for the reason that the petitioner in any case has to travel from Sunni to the other place. It has also been submitted that the son of the parties is about 16 years old and cannot be said to be dependent on the petitioner for all intents and purposes.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through record carefully.
5. The matter was heard on 26.3.2025 and was reserved for orders, however, at the time of going through the relevant material it transpired that the jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is vested in the Court within whose ordinary local jurisdiction the ward ordinarily resides. The parties, thereafter were afforded opportunity to address on the issue as one of the matters that was sought to be transferred was a petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. On 7.4.2025, the Court was informed by learned counsel for respondent/husband that the petition under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 filed by the respondent has been withdrawn.
6. In view of above development now the prayer made in the instant petition is to be considered qua one petition filed under section 13 of the HMA by the respondent.
7. Learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgments passed in (2022) 15 SCC 400 Akkireddy Niharika Vs Akkireddy Kartik Kumar; (2022) 15 SCC 632 Bagdi Bai Vs Laxman; (2021) 14 SCC 44 Neetu Yadav Vs Sachin Yadav and (2021) 15 SCC 257 Rashmi Rohan Shetty Vs Rohan Raghunath Shetty. Having considered the judgments so relied upon, I have not found and specific reiteration of law save and except that all such judgments have been passed in their own peculiar facts.
8. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of petitioner on the judgment dated 23.12.2021 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in CMPMO 296 of 2021 titled Kusum Sharma Vs Vikas Sharma. In para 4 of the Judgment, it was observed as under:
‘4. Having heard learned Counsel representing the petitioner and perused the material available on record, this court has no hesitation to hold that in matrimonial proceedings and other like proceedings, which are the outcome of matrimonial discord, it is the convenience of wife, which is taken into consideration by the court while considering the prayer, if any, made for transfer of the case.’
9. At this stage it will be relevant to reproduce the following extract from Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659
“25. Similarly in Subramaniam Swamy (Dr.)v. Ramakrishna Hegde [(1990) 1 SCC 4] dealing with power of this Court to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Code, A.M. Ahmadi, J. (as His Lordship then was)
