Mitali Sharma and Another v. Shushank Sharma

2026:HHC:35084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 188 of 2026

Date of decision: 17.08.2026. Mitali Sharma & another

...Petitioners.

Versus Shushank Sharma

...Respondent. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The instant petition has been filed for transfer of petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 125 of the Cr.PC in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan.

2.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that the parties solemnized marriage on

09.02.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs. It has been averred that after the marriage, the relation between the parties

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

got strained and the family members of the respondent started taunting the petitioner.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner-wife that out of the wedlock, a child, namely Riddit was born on 29.06.2023 at Solan. As per petitioner-wife, earlier the respondent was serving at H.P. University. However, he never provided any financial assistance to the petitioner and he used to give abuses and beating to the petitioners. It has been stated that after the child was born, the respondent refused to take care of the petitioner-wife and even during the pregnancy, he started harassing and disrespecting the petitioner-wife for one reason or the other. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner-wife is totally dependent on her parents for the survival of her child and herself. Therefore, she has been constrained to institute the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.PC in the year 2023 before the learned District Judge, Family Court, Shimla titled as, Mitali & Another vs. Sushank Sharma.

4.

It has been stated that the petitioner-wife is living with her parents at Solan and it is not feasible for her to go from Solan to Shimla. Therefore, it has been prayed that the proceedings which have been initiated by the present petitioner herself may be ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan, in the interest of justice.

5.

On the other hand, the present petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the present proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner-wife just to harass the respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner-wife herself had filed the present petition along with the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and more so, the mother of the respondent had also filed proceedings against the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act at Shimla.

6.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that once the petitioner-wife has chosen to institute two proceedings at Shimla herself, therefore, now at this stage, the present petition has been filed just to create unnecessary harm to the rights of the present respondent. He further submits that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CMPMO No.578 of 2025, for the transfer of the divorce proceedings which were initiated by the husband in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan.

7.

The said petition was dismissed by this Court on

30.03.2026, and feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-wife had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25234 of 2026, which came to be dismissed on 14.08.2026.

8.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.

9.

In the present case, primarily, the petitioner-wife is seeking transfer of the petition filed by her by invoking the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.PC from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan.

10.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that since she is residing at Solan, therefore, the aforesaid case may also be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan. The present petitioner is seeking transfer of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which she herself had instituted at Shimla of her own. Apart from the present proceedings, she had also filed one case against the respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, which is also pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Court No. 5, Shimla. The divorce proceedings which have been initiated

by the husband against the present petitioner is also pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla and for the transfer of the said case, she had approached this Court and vide order dated 30.03.2026, the said petition was dismissed and the Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the said findings. As the distance between Shimla to Solan is only 45 km, therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice or hardship shall be caused to the present petitioner while attending the cases at Shimla.

11.

In view of the fact that the petitioner-wife herself has filed the present proceedings at Shimla, now merely on her asking, it cannot be transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan. This Court does not find any reason for transfer of the case as has been sought by the petitioner-wife. Therefore, no relief can be granted in the attending facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner-wife. However, it is made clear that in case petitioner-wife makes a request for attending the court proceedings through virtual mode, the learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders.

12.

With the above observations, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same is

accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

13.

Any observations made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observations made here-in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 17th August, 2026.

(kck)