##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.772 of 2025

Decided on: 23.03.2026 Parul Gupta ….Petitioner

Versus Amit Sood ...Respondent

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge

Whether approved for reporting ?

For the petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondent: Ex-parte.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral)

CThe petitioner has approached this Court for transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as filed by the respondent in the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Palampur, District Kangra to Principal Judge (Family

iCourt), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur.

2. It has been contended in the petition that the parties have solemnized the marriage on 13.11.2017 at Bilaspur and immediately after the marriage, the family members of the respondent started torturing the petitioner. On account of non- cooperative behaviour of the husband-respondent, the petitioner left the job and started living with her parents at Bilaspur. She filed a petition on 01.08.2024 under the Domestic Violence Act against the respondent. It has been averred in the petition that in

::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 16:46:30 :::CIS

2

counter blast to the petition filed under Domestic Violence Act, the respondent, in order to harass the petitioner, has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Palampur, District Kangraf, H.P. It has further been averred that the distance between Palampur and the house of the petitioner is at about 140 Kms and she is totally dependent upon her father. On account of financial constraint and the distance between Palampur and Bilaspur, it is very difficult for her to attend the proceedings at Family Court, Palampur. Therefore, under such circumstances, the present petitioner has preferred a petitio n for transfer of petition filed under Secion 9 of Hindu Marrage Act from the Family Court, Palampur to Family Court,

Bilaspur.

3. The present petition is primarily for the transfer of Section 9 petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, without touching the merits of the case, this Court shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the petitioner can be

accepted.

4. This Court had issued notice to the respondent on 22.12.2025 and he stands duly served. Today in pre-lunch session, case was taken up and despite service, none has

::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 16:46:30 :::CIS

3

appeared for the respondent. Now, the case has been taken in the post-lunch session again, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Consequently, he is proceeded ex

parte.

5. While dealing with the fissue of transfer of proceedings from one court to another in matrimonial matters, the convenience of wife is 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 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a case where the wife seeks transfer of the petition, then as against husba nd’s convenience, it is the wife’s convenience which must

be looked at.

6. In Soma Choudhury v. Gourab Choudhaury (2004) 13 SCC 462, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the wife alleges that she has no source of income, whatsoever and was entirely dependent upon her father, then it was the convenience of the wife which was required to be looked

into and not that of the husband.

7. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, in a case seeking transfer of the case at the instance of the wife, it was specifically held by the

::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 16:46:30 :::CIS

4

Hon’ble Supreme Court that convenience of wife was the prime

consideration.

8. Similarly, while dealing with the application for transfer of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (2008