IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 106 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.9.2010. Ms.Deepa Kumari ..Petitioner. Versus. Ashwani K. Lal ..Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? . Yes For the Petitioner (s): Mr.Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) By means of this petition the petitioner seeks transfer of the divorce petition No.21-S/3 of 2009 titled as Ashwani K. Lal vs. Deepa Kumari Chauhan from the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Shimla to any court of competent jurisdiction in District Kangra. The only ground for seeking transfer is that the petitioner is residing with her father in village Bir which is at a distance of 220 kms. from Shimla. It is also alleged that the petitioner is not working and does not have sufficient means to travel to Shimla. This petition has been opposed by the respondent husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 relies upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, wherein it has been held that in the husband’s suit against the wife, the wife’s convenience must be looked into. In my view the said observations have to be read in the light of the facts of that case wherein the husband had filed the proceedings at Ara in Bhojpur District which was at a distance of more than 1100 kms. from Delhi. It was in such circumstances that the case was transferred. Sh.Dogra has also placed reliance on certain judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is not necessary to refer to all the judgments but a reference is being made to a judgment of the single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ritu Gupta vs. Amit Kumar Garg and another, (2005) 141 PLR 593 in which reference has been made to another judgment in which it has been held that Section 19 of the Act inter alia provides that proceedings can be initiated at the place where the wife resides and not at the place where the husband resides. I am in respectful disagreement with these observations which are not in consonance with Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act which reads as follows: 3 “19. Court to which petition shall be presented. Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction- (i) The marriage was solemnized, or (ii) The respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or (iii) The parties to the marriage last resided together, or [(iiia) in case the wife is petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or] (iv) The petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.]” A bare perusal of this provision shows that the proceedings under the Act can be commenced at the place where the marriage was solemnized; at the place where the respondent at the time of presentation of petition resides and at the place where the parties last resides together. By amendment of 2003, clause 3(a) has been added which provides that in case the wife is the petitioner she can file the petition at the place where she is residing. However, this does not mean that in case the husband files the petition at the place where marriage was solemnized or at the place where the couple last 4 resided together the case must be transferred to the place where the wife resides. On the other hand Sh.K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments of the Apex court in Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar (Smt.) vs. Dr.Deviprakash Thakar, (1996) 11 SCC 96 and Damyanti Devi vs. Indrajeet, 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 149 (SC). 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 along with her father or any other member of her family. 5 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. With the aforesaid directions the petition is dismissed. No costs. September 8, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV