IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 329 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Anuradha Sharma …Petitioner. Versus Rajinder Sharma …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of HMA No. 9 of 2010, titled as Rajinder Sharma vs. Anuradha Sharma stated to be pending in the court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur and fixed for 9th September, 2010. 2. The only ground for seeking transfer is that the petitioner is residing with her father in village Thunial, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur which is at a distance of 120 Kms. from Bilaspur. It is also alleged that the petitioner is not working and does not have sufficient means to travel to Bilaspur. 3. Similar matter has been decided by this Court in CMPMO No. 106 of 2010 titled as Ms. Deepa Kumari v. Ashwani 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 K. Lal, on 8.9.2010. After considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, this Court held as follows: “True it is that the convenience of the wife should be taken into consideration but this will have to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be laid down that in every case the petition must be transferred to the court in whose jurisdiction the wife resides. In the present case, it is alleged that the respondent is a practicing Advocate on the income tax side. On the other hand it is alleged that the petitioner is not working. If the respondent has to leave Shimla for 2-3 days to attend the case it would mean that his cases would remain unattended during those days. Therefore, the petitioner can be compensated for coming to Shimla alongwith her father or any other member of her family. It is also not disputed that as far as the present proceedings are concerned issues have already been framed and the matter is already fixed for evidence. In view of the aforesaid facts, I feel that there is no necessity to transfer the petition from Shimla to any court at Kangra and interest of justice will be served in case the respondent husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- on every date of hearing to the petitioner-wife attends court and shall pay the said amount to her in Court. However, in case adjournment is sought by the wife she shall not be entitled to this amount for the said date.” 4. In every case where proceedings for divorce are filed, the matter cannot be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction over the station where the wife is living. In the present case, if proceedings are transferred to Hamirpur this obviously means that 3 the wife should have to travel from her village to Hamirpur. The distance from Hamirpur to Bilaspur is only about 60 Kms. It cannot be said that this distance is so much that the wife is not in a position to contest the proceedings at Bilaspur. Therefore, this petition is rejected, but it is made clear that keeping in view the law laid down in CMPMO No. 106 of 2010, the learned trial court shall fix the maintenance pendente lite to be paid to the petitioner and shall also issue direction that the husband shall pay the expenses of the wife for attending hearings at Bilaspur alongwith some member of her family. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 13, 2010 (VT)