Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)

CThe petitioner has approached this Court for transfer of the peti tion filed by respondent for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMA No. 259 of 2025, titled Sushant Sharma vs. Shriya Kaushal, before H iLearned Principal Judge (Family Court)-II, Shimla, District Shimla, HP to the Court of Learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Una, camp at Amb, District Una, H.P.

2. The copy of the divorce petition has been appended with the present petition. As per the averments as made in the petition, the parties got married on 28.02.2020 at Sudha Marriage Palace Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. On account of differences between the parties, the petitioner was compelled to leave the company of the respondent and thereafter she is.residing in the house of her parents at Amb, District Una, HPP. It has been averred that the present petitioner has been dr.agged in an uncalled for litigation by filing the petition for divorce intentionally at Shimla so that she may tof co me from Amb to Shimla after covering more than 200 ok.ms. It has further been averred that petitioner has no source of income and she is totally dependent upon her old arged mother. Even otherwise, on account of financial constraints she was compelled to approach the learned Judicoial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. by instituting thCe proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short D.V.Act), wherein interim maintenance was initially granted to the applicant of Rs. 5,000 vide order dated 31.01.2023 payable from 14.01.2022.

3. Since the amount was meagre, therefore, she preferred an appeal before learned Additional Session Judge-II, Una and in a counter blast to that, the respondent also preferred an appeal against the passing of the order for the grant of interim maintenance. Learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the wife/ petitioner and the amount of interim maintenance has been enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 7,000/- per month payable w.e.f. 14.02.2022. It has been stated that despite passing the orders by the competent court of law, the respondent has failed to pay the amount of maintenance, as a result of which she is suffering financial constraints. P

4. Therefore, under such circumstances, the. present petitioner has preferred this petition for the transfer of the divorce petition from Family Court, District Shimla Hf.P . to Family Court, Una, camp at Amb, District Una, H.P. o

5. Upon issuance of notic e, Ms. Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel appeared for the resrpondent and she has vehemently opposed the said prayer of the petitioner on the ground that no case is made out foor the transfer of the case and the present case has been fiCled just to prolong the litigation, which has been instituted by the husband for the dissolution of the marriage. She has submitted that the petitioner can certainly come to Shimla and for the journey of the petitioner, her client is ready to bear iexpenses.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the inconvenience on account of distance, if divorce petition is not transferred, in that event the petitioner would not be able to meet the expenses for her journey and even otherwise after the passing of the grant of maintenance by the learned Courts below, nothing has been paid to her by the respondent. He further submits that the distance between the Court at Shimla and Court at Amb is more than 200 kms.

7. While dealing with the issue of transfer of.proceedings from one court to another in matrimonial mPatters, the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the con.venience of husband, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and a nother (2001) 10 SCC 41, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a case where the wife seeks tra nsfer of the petition, then as against husband’s conveniernce, it is the wife’