Ms. Neha Sharma vs Navneet Sharma on 9 April, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ms. Neha Sharma vs Navneet Sharma on 9 April, 2026

                                      ( 2026:HHC:11552 )




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                              CMPMO No. 403 of 2025
                             Decided on : 09.04.2026




                                                                                  .
    ____________________________________________________





     Ms. Neha Sharma                      ...Petitioner.

                                        Versus





    Navneet Sharma                                                 .....Respondent.
    Coram




                                                       of
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner:  Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
    For the respondents: Mr. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate.
                             rt
    __________________________________________________
    Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The present petition has been filed by the

petitioner seeking for the transfer of Petition No. 44 of 2024

SPONSORED

titled Navneet Sharma vs. Neha Sharma, pending in the

Court of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court),

Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. to the Court of learned

Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla, District Shimla, HP.

2. It has been contended in the petition that the

parties have solemnized the marriage on 24/25.05.2021 at

Kalar, PO Bhaderwar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

and out of the wedlock there is one Son Master Avyukt

Sharma, born on 26.06.2023. After the birth of the child the

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS

2 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

relation between the parties started deteriorating on the one

pretext or the other. Though, with the intervention of the

.

family members the matter was temporarily reconciled

between the parties, however, behavior of the respondent

and his family members was abusive, erratic, cruel and

insulting. It has been contended in the petition that on

of
account of the behavior of the present respondent the

petitioner was forced to left his company and to shift to her
rt
parents home, who are residing at Vikas Nagar, Shimla,

H.P.

3. The present respondent filed a petition No.

44/2024/HMA against the present petitioner before the Court

of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), Joginder

Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., which is pending for

adjudication. It is stated that the present petitioner also

filed a petition against the present respondent before the

learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla, H.P. seeking

dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and

desertion. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent

is doing a private job at Chandigarh having a monthly

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS
3 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

earning of Rs 70,000/- and apart from that he is also

earning handsomely from the landed property.

.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the

distance between Shimla and Joginder Nagar is more than

150 k.m., Therefore, it will be very difficult to the present

petitioner to travel at such a long distance. The petitioner

of
submits that the child of the parties is residing with the

present petitioner and it is very difficult to go alone
rt to

Joginder Nagar to attend each and every proceedings which

has been instituted by the present respondent under the

provision of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. before

learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), Joginder

Nagar, Mandi, H.P. There is none to look after the minor

child of the petitioner as the parents of the petitioner are old

and ailing. Therefore, a prayer has made for the transfer of

the petition filed by the present respondent before the

learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), Joginder

Nagar to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family

Court), Shimla, HP.

5. This Court issued notices to the respondent on

21.07.2025 and thereafter, Neha Sharma with Navneet

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS
4 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

Sharma has put in appearance on 08.09.2025. Thereafter,

as per report of the Registry Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Advocate

.

filed power of attorney and the same is placed in the B part

of the present proceedings. Reply on behalf of the

respondent has been filed by Ms. Ayushi Sharma, in which

all the averments as made in the petition are refuted and the

of
respondent has sought the dismissal of the present

proceedings . rt

6. It is contended by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned

counsel for the petitioner that the distance between Joginder

Nagar and Shimla is more than 150 k.m. , therefore, it

would not be safe and appropriate to the petitioner to travel

to such a long distance. Keeping in view the fact that the

son of the parties is only three years old. It has been

averred that apart from the inconvenience on account of the

distance the petitioner is also having financial constraints to

go to Joginder Nagar to attend each and every hearing.

Therefore, it has been prayed that the present petition be

transferred from the Court of learned Additional District

Judge (Family Court), Joginder Nagar, Mandi, H.P. to the

Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Shimla, HP.

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS

5 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

7. The present petition is primarily for the transfer of

Section 9 petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act.

.

Therefore, without touching the merits of the case, this Court

shall proceed further to examine whether the prayer of the

petitioner can be accepted.

8. While dealing with the issue of transfer of

of
proceedings from one court to another in matrimonial

matters, the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the
rt
convenience of husband, in terms of the mandate of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay

and another (2001) 10 SCC 41, wherein it was held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a case where the wife seeks

transfer of the petition, then as against husband’s

convenience, it is the wife’s convenience which must be

looked at.

9. In Soma Choudhury v. Gourab Choudhaury

(2004) 13 SCC 462, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that once the wife alleges that she has no source of

income, whatsoever and was entirely dependent upon her

father, then it was the convenience of the wife which was

required to be looked into and not that of the husband.

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS

6 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

10. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal

Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, in a case seeking transfer of

.

the case at the instance of the wife, it was specifically held

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that convenience of wife was

the prime consideration.

11. Similarly, while dealing with the application for

of
transfer of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder

Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and
rt
others (2008) 3 SCC 659, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after

analyzing the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code

of Civil Procedure laid down certain broad parameters for

transfer of cases and it was held as under:

“23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code

together and keeping in view various judicial
pronouncements, certain broad propositions as

to what may constitute a ground for transfer
have been laid down by Courts. They are
balance of convenience or inconvenience to

the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;
convenience or inconvenience of a particular
place of trial having regard to the nature of
evidence on the points involved in the suit
issues raised by the parties; reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he
might not get justice in the court in which the
suit is pending; important questions of law
involved or a considerable section of public
interested in the litigation; “interest of justice”

demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other
proceeding, etc. Above are some of the
instances which are germane in considering

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS
7 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or
other proceeding. They are, however,
illustrative in nature and by no means be
treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other

.

relevant considerations, the Court feels that the

plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a
“fair trial” in the Court from which he seeks to
transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the

duty of the Court to make such order.”

12. In Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another v.

of
Dharmendra Kumar Gupta (2008) 9 SCC 353, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the wife had
rt
sought transfer of proceedings on the ground that she was

having a minor child and it was difficult for her to attend the

Court at Palamu, Daltonganj, which was in the State of

Jharkhand and at a quite distance from Patna where she

was now residing with her child. Taking into consideration

the convenience of the wife, the proceedings were ordered

to be transferred.

13. Similarly, in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani v. Ashok

Kishinchand Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374, the wife had

sought transfer of the case to Bombay from Indore in

Madhya Pradesh on the ground of inconvenience as there

was none in her family to escort her to Indore and on this

ground the proceedings were ordered to be transferred.

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS

8 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

14. In the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus

Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, the Hon’ble

.

Supreme Court has held as under:-

“In this type of matter, the convenience of the
wife is to be preferred over the convenience of

the husband. Hindu Marriage Petition No.6 of
2004, Kishor Babulal Pardeshi v. Rajani Kishor
Pardeshi pending before the Court of Civil

of
Judge, Senior Division at Panvel, Mumbai,
Maharashtra is transferred to the Family Court
of proper jurisdiction at Satana,

15. In Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022 [arising out of
rt
SLP(C) No(s).16465 of 2021], titled as N.C.V. Aishwarya

versus A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has outlined the cardinal principles for considering

prayer for transfer of proceedings, from one Court-place to

another, in matrimonial matters, in following terms:-

“8. It is not disputed that the appellant is
the resident of Chennai and that the appellant’s
husband respondent herein is the resident of

Vellore and he is employed. The appellant who
is 21 years old does not have any source of
income of her own as she is not employed and
is totally dependent on her parents for her
livelihood. In order to attend the court
proceedings of the case filed by her husband at
Vellore she has to travel alone all the way from
Chennai to Vellore as her parents are not in a
position to accompany her on account of their
old age. Secondly, the appellant has also filed a
petition, H.M.O.P. No.1741 of 2021, for
restitution of conjugal rights and another
petition, M.C. Sr. No.672 of 2021, for her

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS
9 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

maintenance before the Family Court at
Chennai.

9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power

.

under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure

is that the ends of justice should demand the
transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding.
In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are

called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the
Courts have to take into consideration the
economic soundness of both the parties, the
social strata of the spouses and their

of
behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior
to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the
circumstances of both the parties in eking out
their livelihood and under whose protective
rt
umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to
life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic
paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is

the wife’s convenience which must be looked at
while considering transfer.

10. Further, when two or more proceedings are

pending in different Courts between the same
parties which raise common question of fact
and law, and when the decisions in the cases
are interdependent, it is desirable that they

should be tried together by the same Judge so
as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same

issues and conflict of decisions.”

16. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and

circumstances of the case and the cardinal principles

outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sumita Singh,

Rajani Pardeshi and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s cases [supra],

this Court is of considered view, that the present petition

deserves to be allowed, for the reasons, that the distance

between Joginder Nagar and Shimla is more than 150 Kms

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS
10 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

and the petitioner is totally dependent upon her parents.

Therefore, on account of her financial constraint, it will be

.

very difficult for her to travel from Shimla to Joginder Nagar

and to attend each and every hearing(s).

17. A similar issue, praying for transfer of

proceedings from one Court to another, has been dealt with

of
in CMPMO No.466 of 2020, titled as Monu versus Rakesh

Kumar, decided on 26.07.2023 and in other matters i.e.
rt
CMPMO No.604 of 2023, titled as Manisha Thakur versus

Akash Chauhan, decided on 05.12.2023 and in CMPMO

No.688 of 2023, titled as Sumiti Chandel versus Parvesh

Singh, decided on 10.01.2024, in following terms:-

“6. In view of the mandate of law referred

to above, and the no objection accorded by the
learned counsel for the respondent herein; the

present petition is allowed and H.M. Misc.
Petition No. 351 of 2023, titled as Parvesh
Singh Vs Sumiti Chandel, pending before the

Additional Principal Judge Family Court
Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh is ordered to be
transferred to the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.”

18. In a matter having similar facts and situation, this

Court has allowed the transfer of proceedings on request of

wife in CMPMO No.706 of 2023, titled as Chandni versus

Rajeev Pathik, decided on 04.11.2024, in following terms:-

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS

11 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

“8. In view of the above discussion and for the
reasons, recorded herein-above, the present
petition is allowed; and the proceedings i.e.
HMA No.179- S/3 of 2023, titled as Rajeev

.

Pathik versus Chandni, pending before the

Court of Learned Principal Judge (Family
Court), Shimla (HP) are ordered to be
transferred to the Court of Learned Principal

Judge [Family Court] Mandi, District Mandi
[HP].”

of

19. In view of the above discussion and for the

reasons, recorded herein-above, the present petition is
rt
allowed; and the proceedings i.e. HMA No. 44 of 2024, titled

Navneet Sharma vs. Neha Sharma, pending before the

Court of learned Additional District Judge (Family Court),

Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. are ordered to be

transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family

Court), Shimla, District Shimla, HP.

20. Consequent upon the directions contained

hereinabove, Registry is directed to inform the Court of

Learned Additional District Judge (Family Court), Joginder

Nagar, Mandi, HP to transfer entire case records of HMA

No. 44 of 2024 titled Navneet Sharma vs. Neha Sharma to

the Court of Learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Shimla,

District Shimla, HP within two weeks from today; with further

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS
12 ( 2026:HHC:11552 )

directions to the Court of Principal Judge (Family Court)

Shimla, District Shimla, HP to issue fresh notice(s) to the

.

parties and then to proceed further in the matter, in

accordance with law.

21. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed

and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

of
also stand disposed of, accordingly.

rt

(Romesh Verma)
Judge

April 9, 2026
(Nisha)

::: Downloaded on – 16/04/2026 20:29:22 :::CIS