IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO. 604 of 2023 Decided on: 05.12.2023 Manisha Thakur ……..Petitioner/Wife Versus Akash Chauhan Respondent/Husband Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?

For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Nitin, Advocate.

Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

Tohe respondent namely Akash Chauhan has filed a H.M. Misc. Petition No. 238 of 2023, titled as Akash Chauhan vs. Manisha Thakur which is pending hbefore the learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner-wife, Manisha Thakur, has filed the instant CMPMO with the following relief(s):-

i) That the case No. titled as H.M.Petition No.238 of 2023 tilted Akash Chauhan vs. Manisha Thakur pending in the court of Learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh may very kindly be transferred to the Court of Ld.

Principal Judge Family Court, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.”

3. In the background of the prayers so made, the petitioner has prayed that the H..M. Misc. Petition No.238 of 203, titled as Akash Chauhan vs. Manisha Thakur may be transferred from Family Court of Hamirpur to Family Court Bilaspur. The prayer so made is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions received from the respondent herein.

4. It is trite law that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, Para 4 of the judgment reads as under:-

“In this type of matter, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. Hindu Marriage Petition No.6 of 2004, Kishor Babulal Pardeshi v. Rajani Kishor Pardeshi pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panvel, Mumbai, Maharashtra is transferred to the Family Court of proper jurisdiction at Satana, Madhya Pradesh.”

5. In addition to this, the prayer made by the petitioner-wife carries weight in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 and Paras 8 to 10 are read as under:- “8. It is not disputed that the appellant is the resident of Chennai and that the appellant’s uhusband-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 i 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 outH their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomfic paradigm in the Indian society, generalloy, 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 par