Himachal Pradesh High Court
______________________________________________________________________ vs on 29 April, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.: 341 of 2018
.
Date of Decision: 29.04.2019
______________________________________________________________________
Smt. Babita ....Petitioner.
Versus
Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma .....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner:
r to
Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Ms. Vandana Mishra, Advocate.
Parties are present in person.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alongwith Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made by the petitioner (wife) for transfer of a petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent (husband), i.e., HMA No. 88 of 2018, titled as Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Babita, presently pending before the Court of learned Additional District JudgeII, Shimla to the Court of learned District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. on the ground that it is not 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 21:58:06 :::HCHP 2possible for the petitioner (wife) to defend herself in the said case, which stands instituted against her by the respondent (husband) under Section .
13(1) (Ia) & (Ib) at Shimla.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record appended with the petition.
3. On the previous date of hearing, this Court had directed the parties to remain present in the Court in person so as to make an endeavour to explore the possibility of any amicable settlement. However, after hearing the parties in person, prima facie, this Court is of the view that there is no chance of the matter being amicably settled between the parties at this stage.
4. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is presently serving as a Forest Guard on contract basis in the Forest Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh and is posted as such at Nauradhar, District Sirmaur. She has stated that on account of the nature of job of a Forest Guard, she has to remain in the field and presently, she is looking after the area which is commonly known as 'Wild Life Area of Churdhar' in Nauradhar.
5. On the other hand, respondent (husband) is serving as a Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kupvi, Tehsil Chopal, District Sirmaur and apparently his job is a stationed job and unlike the petitioner, he is not supposed to serve in the field.
::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 21:58:06 :::HCHP 36. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition by relying upon the judgments of this Court in CMPMO No. 106 of 2010, .
titled as Ms. Deepa Kumari Vs. Ashwani K. Lal and CMPMO No. 127 of 2012, titled as Bharti Vs. Dr. Ravi Sharma and has stated that it is not as if in each and every case in which the petitioner (wife) approaches the Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the matter has to be transferred to a station of her choice.
7. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, there is no dispute qua the same. Whether or not a petition which has been filed for transfer of the case has to be allowed or not, but natural depends upon the facts of that particular case.
8. Taking into consideration the factual background of this case wherein the petitioner (wife) who is serving as a Forest Guard on contract basis and has been forced to face the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which stands filed by the respondent against her at Shimla, in my considered view, this is a fit case where prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the case to the Court of learned District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur should be allowed, because it will be in the interest of justice if the petition is transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, as it will be convenient for the wife to defend herself at the said place, rather than contesting the case at ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 21:58:06 :::HCHP 4 Shimla. Her job but obvious is contractual in nature. It has not been controverted that she is a permanent resident of Village and Post Office .
Tatiyana, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. It is also not in dispute that as from the place where she is presently posted, it will take her roughly about eight hours to reach Shimla, whereas she can easily reach Nahan at about four hours time.
9. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. HMA No. 88 of 2018, which is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional District JudgeII, Shimla is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. Registrar (Judicial) to take follow up action by informing both the learned Additional District JudgeII, Shimla as also learned District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur with regard to the order which has been passed by this Court today. Parties through learned counsel are directed to appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur on 20th May, 2019. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 29, 2019 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 21:58:06 :::HCHP