Shweta Raghav Vs Abhimanyu Parmar

¶1

( 2025:HHC:6135 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No. 541 of 2024.

¶4

Reserved on : 7th March, 2025.

¶5

Decided on : 12th March, 2025.

¶6

Shweta Raghav Versus	...Petitio	ner.
Abhimanyu Parmar	....Responde	nts.
*Coram:*
*The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vai*	*dya, Judge.*
Whether approved for reporting?¹No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Prem Aakash Th Thakur, Adv	Chand Verm akur and Mr ocates.	a, Mr. . Varun
For the respondents: Mr. Anshu Rajinder Advocates.	man Thakur Kumar	and Mr. Sharma,

¶7

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶8

By way of instant petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of the proceedings of case HMA No. 106 of 2024 from the Court of Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Nurpur, District Kangra to the Family Court, Chamba.

¶9

Petitioner and the respondent being wife and husband respective have faced discord in their matrimonial relationship. Case HMA No. 106/2024 has been filed by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife under Section 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2 ( 2025:HHC:6135 )

¶11

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge (Family Court) Nurpur, District Kangra.

¶12

Petitioner/wife is seeking transfer of above noted case to Family Court, Chamba on the premise that the petitioner/wife presently is working as Veterinary Officer at Chamba and is residing there with her two years old daughter. It is submitted that there is considerable distance between Chamba and Nurpur and for such reason petitioner/wife will not be in a position to effectively pursue the matter. She is stated to have filed two separate petitions against the respondent/husband, one under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and both are stated to be pending before the courts of competent jurisdiction at Chamba. The petitioner/wife has shown her difficulty in defending the case at Nurpur by alleging that she will be compelled to travel from Chamba to Nurpur and to spend substantial amount in this process.

¶13

In reply, the respondent/husband has submitted that the petitioner/wife is serving the State Government and can be transferred to any place in Himachal Pradesh. Her permanent address is stated to be Muradabad in Utter

¶14

3 ( 2025:HHC:6135 )

¶15

Pradesh with further allegation that the petitioner/wife has no family ties in Chamba. The place of present posting of petitioner/wife is also stated to be at Bharmour in District Chamba. As per the respondent, the daughter of the parties is presently being looked after by the parents of the petitioner/wife at Muradabad.

¶16

Petitioner/wife has filed rejoinder and has submitted that the respondent is of a quarrelsome nature and has not left any stone unturn to harass and humiliate the petitioner. On such allegations the petitioner has shown apprehension of imminent danger to her life and property in District Kangra. It has further been submitted that her case may be transferred either to Chamba or to Shimla. She has admitted that her present place of posting is at Bharmour.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. By way of averments made in the petition, the petitioner has tried to justify her prayer for transfer of petition by showing difficulty in pursuing the case at Nurpur in District Kangra. Firstly, the petitioner has stated that she is a government servant and keeping in view the long distance of about 140 kilometers between the place of her posting at Nurpur, it will not be possible for her to effectively defend her

¶18

4 ( 2025:HHC:6135 )

¶19

case and secondly that her young daughter of two years was also residing with her.

¶20

Undisputably, the petitioner is not posted at Chamba. Her place of posting is at Bharmour which is at a distance of about 60 Kms from Chamba. She must already be travelling from Bharmour to Chamba to attend case filed by her.

¶21

Petitioner has not denied that her parents are at Muradabad (U.P.). It has not been shown that the petitioner has some permanent interest at Chamba. Petitioner is in government service and she can be transferred to any place in the State being in State Cadre of service.

¶22

In the petition, there was no averment that the petitioner apprehended any threat to her life or property while visiting Nurpur. Reference made in the rejoinder to the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Kangra, dated 04.01.2022 and the alleged admission made by the respondent/husband in the compromise allegedly arrived at between them cannot help the case of petitioner for the reasons; firstly that the order dated 04.01.2022 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Kangra does not prima facie reveal that the respondent/husband was accused of the conduct that could provide the petitioner/wife reason to

¶23

5 ( 2025:HHC:6135 )

¶24

apprehend threat to her life or proper and secondly, the attempt of petitioner to take benefit of the aforesaid order appears to be not bonafide as it has not been shown that in what manner the proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Kangra, finally culminated. It cannot be believed that the proceedings initiated under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 04.01.2022 had not come to an end. As regards, the alleged admission made by the respondent/husband in compromise deed dated 18.09.2022, again it has not been shown that what was the final result of the compromise allegedly effected between the parties. Admittedly, the parties are having matrimonial discord till date. Record reveals that during the pendency of the instant petition also the parties had arrived at a settlement on the basis of which this Court had passed the following order on 08.11.2024:-

¶25

“ Parties are present in person in pursuance to the previous order of this Court.

¶26

The parties have jointly informed that they have already decided to file a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of competent jurisdiction for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent as despite efforts they have found it difficult to continue with their married life.

¶27

According to the parties, they have also agreed that the custody of their only female child will remain with the petitioner. As regards payment of alimony to the petitioner,

¶28

6 ( 2025:HHC:6135 )

¶29

it has been agreed that she will not claim any alimony for herself, however, the respondent has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- per month in the account of minor daughter under Sukanaya Samridhi Yojana which stands already opened.

¶30

There appeared to be some discord between the parties with respect to the visitation rights of respondent, however, after the interaction with the parties, they have now agreed that keeping in view the tender age of child, for the time being, the respondent shall be permitted to see the child once in six months at the place wherever the petitioner is posted. This understanding has been arrived at with a condition that the respondent shall have right in future to seek amendment to this arrangement, in case, it is found necessary with changed circumstances.

¶31

Learned counsel for the parties have played a positive role in making the parties to arrive at an amicable resolution of their dispute.

¶32

The parties undertake to take further steps regarding filing of a petition under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and to have first motion before the appropriate Court on or before the next date.

¶33

List on 22^nd November, 2024.”

¶34

However, on the next date i.e. on 22.11.2024, the petitioner informed the Court that the arrangements as earlier decided between the parties had failed for the time being.

¶35

Thus, there is no credible material on record to justify the allegations of petitioner with respect to threat being perceived by her from the respondent.

¶36

Even otherwise the petitioner is free to join the proceedings of the case through the mode of video

¶37

7 ( 2025:HHC:6135 )

¶38

conferencing and there is no averment made in the petition that despite effort she has not been able to do so.

¶39

In result, the petition fails and is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to seek hearing from the Family Court, Nurpur through video conferencing. Needless to say that, in case such a prayer is made by the petitioner, she will be allowed to join proceedings through video conferencing.

¶40

Petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.

¶41

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶42

12^th March, 2025. (jai)

Shweta Raghav v. Abhimanyu Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shweta Raghav v. Abhimanyu Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Dutt Sharma Vs Rameshwari Sharma

Prashant Kumar Vs State of H.P

Bhuvneshwari Devi Vs State of Hp

Tansen Sangeet Mahavidalaya Vs Vikas Sharma and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jai Devi

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jai Devi