The court ruled that a petitioner must provide credible evidence for transferring proceedings, and unsubstantiated claims of threat do not justify such a request.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

By way of instant petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of the proceedings of case HMA No. 106 of 2024 from the Court of Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Nurpur, District Kangra to the Family Court, Chamba.

2. Petitioner and the respondent being wife and husband respective have faced discord in their matrimonial relationship. Case HMA No. 106/2024 has been filed by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge (Family Court) Nurpur, District Kangra.

3. Petitioner/wife is seeking transfer of above noted case to Family Court, Chamba on the premise that the petitioner/wife presently is working as Veterinary Officer at Chamba and is residing there with her two years old daughter. It is submitted that there is considerable distance between Chamba and Nurpur and for such reason petitioner/wife will not be in a position to effectively pursue the matter. She is stated to have filed two separate petitions against the respondent/husband, one under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and both are stated to be pending before the courts of competent jurisdiction at Chamba. The petitioner/wife has shown her difficulty in defending the case at Nurpur by alleging that she will be compelled to travel from Chamba to Nurpur and to spend substantial amount in this process.

4. In reply, the respondent/husband has submitted that the petitioner/wife is serving the State Government and can be transferred to any place in Himachal Pradesh. Her permanent address is stated to be Muradabad in Utter Pradesh with further allegation that the petitioner/wife has no family ties in Chamba. The place of present posting of petitioner/wife is also stated to be at Bharmour in District Chamba. As per the respondent, the daughter of the parties is presently being looked after by the parents of the petitioner/wife at Muradabad.

5. Petitioner/wife has filed rejoinder and has submitted that the respondent is of a quarrelsome nature and has not left any stone unturn to harass and humiliate the petitioner. On such allegations the petitioner has shown apprehension of imminent danger to her life and property in District Kangra. It has further been submitted that her case may be transferred either to Chamba or to Shimla. She has admitted that her present place of posting is at Bharmour.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. By way of averments made in the petition, the petitioner has tried to justify her prayer for transfer of petition by showing difficulty in pursuing the case at Nurpur in District Kangra. Firstly, the petitioner has stated that she is a government servant and keeping in view the long distance of about 140 kilometers between the place of her posting at Nurpur, it will not be possible for her to effectively defend her case and secondly that her young daughter of two years was also residing with her.

8. Undisputably, the petitioner is not posted at Chamba. Her place of posting is at Bharmour which is at a distance of about 60 Kms from Chamba. She must already be travelling from Bharmour to Chamba to attend case filed by her.

9. Petitioner has not denied that her parents are at Muradabad (U.P.). It has not been shown that the petitioner has some permanent interest at Chamba. Petitioner is in government service and she can be transferred to any place in the State being in State Cadre of service.

10. In the petition, there was no averment that the petitioner apprehended any threat to her life or property while visiting Nurpur. Reference made in the rejoinder to the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Kangra, dated 04.01.2022 and the alleged admission made by the respondent/husband in the compromise allegedly arrived at between them cannot help the case of petitioner