CMPMO 3 of 2008. 18.8.2008 Present: Mr. Digvijay, vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.R.Sharma, vice counsel for the respondent. This petition has been instituted by the wife under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that case under Section 13(a) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, be transferred to Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala. The petitioner avers that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu custom and rites in February 2005, whereafter some disputes arose between the parties; the matter was taken up by the Gram Panchayat, Mohron; a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner was filed at Palampur. It is pleaded that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the company of the respondent. It is averred that the petitioner is unemployed and is dependent upon her parents and has no source of income. She pleads that she cannot travel alone from Palampur to Shimla, which would mean incurring expenditure; her father is old and a threat has been issued to her that in case she comes to contest the case at Shimla, she will be beaten -2- up and taught a lesson. All these factors, according to her, make it difficult for her to attend Court at Shimla. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure vests power in this Court to transfer cases from one Court to another in case of difficulty. But at the same time, provisions cannot be invoked on every pretext. Section 24 of the Code vests power in the High Court to transfer any suit or appeal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to dispose it of. It is undisputed that this power cannot be exercised lightly and all factors have to be taken into consideration. The allegation that the petitioner is being threatened by the respondent is serious and if it be true, notice has to be taken of the fact that no party can be prevented from attending Court. Access to justice is free and fundamental and the bedrock of the judicial system. However, making casual averments in the petition without any supportive material cannot be accepted on its face value. Surely, in case the petitioner had been threatened, she should have made a report to the police bringing such threat to their notice and thereupon action would have been initiated against the respondent in accordance with law. -3- However, process under criminal justice system or the Contempt of Court Act cannot be set in motion lightly unless there is prima facie material on record which I do not find in this case. The other averments made do not constitute sufficient ground as I find there is no material on record to substantiate the allegations. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions: i) The trial Court shall provide full protection to the petitioner herein on every date of hearing and ensure not only that the petitioner attends the Court unharmed, and no danger is caused to her life and limb; ii) The petition shall be tried expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the respondent who is the petitioner before the trial Court. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again. The petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. August 18, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.