IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 16^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) No.452 of

2020 Between:

SMT. ANJANA DEVI W/O SH. JITENDER KUMAR & D/O LATE SH. RAGHUNATH KAUSHAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KATHIYANA, P.O. OKHROO, TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P., PIN 171103, PRESENTLY RESIDING WITH HER MOTHER SMT. UMA KAUSHAL, W/O LATE SH. RAGHUNATH KAUSHAL, VILLAGE RAHU (SANJHER, P.O. PALOG, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P. PIN 173208, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE.

….PETITIONER.

(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PARMAR, LEGAL AID COUNSEL)

AND SH. JITENDER KUMAR S/O SH. LEELA DASS, R/O VILLAGE KATHIYANA, P.O. OKHROO, TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P. PIN 171103, OCCUPATION TAXI DRIVER.

….RESPONDENT.

2 .

SMT. UMA KAUSHAL W/O LATE SH. RAGHUNATH KAUSHAL, VILLAGE RAHU (SANJHER, P.O. PALOG, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P., PIN 173208, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE.

….. PROFORMA RESPONDENT.

(BY S/SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA AND RAJINDER THAKUR, LEARNED COUNSELS)

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following: o

J U D G M E N T

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Consthitution of India read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made for transfer of the proceedings which have been initiated by the respondent, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the present petitioner, i.e. HMA Petition No.75 of 2020, titled as Jitender Versus Anjana Devi & another, from Family Court Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., to Family Court Solan, Camp At Arki, District Solan, H.P.

2. Learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a destitute lady who has no source of income. She has a minor girl aged about 2½ years to look after, who has been born out of the wedlock between her and the respondent (Jitender Kumar). He submits that presently the

3 .

petitioner is residing at village Rahu, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., which is at a distance of about four kilometers from Arki, with her mother. Learned counsel further informs the Court that the petitioner has no source of income and presently, the family is surviving from the income which the mother of the petitioner is earning under MNREGA Scheme. He further submits that in these circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner to defend herself at Shimla and it will be in the interest of justice in case this petition is allowed and the matter filed by the respondents is ordered to be heard by the Family Court Solan, Camp at Arki, District Solan, H.P., as the village of the petitioner is just at a distance of four kilometer from Arki. Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioner only has her mother to maintain her as her father died recently and H in these circumstances also, to come to Shimla to defend the proceedings initiated against her by the respondents is very difficult. 3. Opposing the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner for the reason that she can easily defend the proceedings which have been filed by the respondent at Shimla. He further submits that the proceedings otherwise are for restitution of conjugal rights as the respondent is willing to take the petitioner as well as the minor child to his residence so that they can live together.

4 .

4. With regard to the contentions raised in the petition by the petitioner that she has initiated the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, which are presently pending in the appropriate Court at Arki, District Solan, H.P., Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel submits that these pleas are incorrect as till date no notice etc. in thist regard has been received by the respondents.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

6. During the cour