1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.172 of 2008. Date of decision: 17.09.2008. Jai Devi …Petitioner Versus Ram Rattan …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.B.N. Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been filed by the wife who is the respondent in the petition for divorce instituted against her by her husband which is pending for trial in the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the proceedings be transferred to Shimla. She has alleged that respondent is an influential person and is involved in some criminal case(s) which has been registered in Police Station, Mandi. She also pleads that she is working on contract basis as a Receptionist with the H.P. State 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 Electricity Regulatory Commission, Shimla, where she is earning Rs.3,200/- per month and residing with her sister at Shimla. She pleads financial/economic restraint and exigencies of her service amongst other grounds of pleadings for transfer of the case from Bilaspur to Shimla. She also submits that it is difficult for her to travel to and fro Shimla to Bilaspur, praying for leave from her employer, which he is unwilling to give. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Without entering into the controversy as to whether the husband of the petitioner is a person of criminal propensity, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner will have to travel to and from Shimla to Bilaspur and keeping in view her exigencies of service and economic deprivation, this petition is allowed. The principle of transfer has already been laid down by the Supreme Court in Guda Vijayalakshmi vs. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143, holding that the substantive provisions of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not excluded by Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same principle would be applied for transfer of cases. Learned counsel places reliance on Shyamali Ghosh vs. Sumit Kumar Ghosh, AIR 2000 SC 3351, holding that the inconvenience caused to the wife for 3 traveling etc. on account of her job would form a valid ground for transferring the petition to another Court. He also places reliance on Ravinder Kaur vs. Hitinder Singh AIR 2000 SC 3403(2), Smt.Rita Barua vs. Siddartha Barua, AIR 2000 SC 3514, Munni Kumari vs. Shailendra Kumar Choudhary, AIR 2000 SC 3565(1) and Raj Laxmi Sharma vs. Dilip Kumar Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 3572. All these cases have been disposed of by the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure on their peculiar facts. The powers exercised by this Court under Section 24 are in pera- materia with the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 25. Those cases were decided on their individual facts, however, the principle as laid down is squarely applicable in the present case. The judgments cited no doubt are confined to the facts of those cases before the Court, however, the general principle cannot be denied that the inability of parties to attend day to day proceedings for reasons beyond his / her control form a valid ground for transfer of a case from one Court to another. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The divorce petition titled: Ram Rattan vs. Jai Devi, HMA Petition 6/3/2007,(case number given by the learned counsel for the petitioner) filed under Section 13(a) of the 4 Hindu Marriage Act pending disposal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur is ordered to be transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla. The parties to appear before the learned District Judge, Shimla on 10.11.2008. The learned Court shall proceed with the petition in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Bilaspur as also to the District Judge at Shimla. September 17, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.