JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner herein is wife of respondent. They have solemnized marriage on 23rd April, 2015 at Shimla according to Hindu rites and ceremonies after falling in love with each other. On 6th January, 2017, petitioner-wife had approached Women Police Station, Shimla for lodging a complaint against her husband and inlaws under Domestic Violence Act. Her statement was recorded by the police and was referred to the Protection Officer, Totu, Shimla, for further action whereupon, on the basis of report, dated 15th February, 2017 filed by Protection Officer in an application filed under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act in April, 2017, Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, has taken cognizance of the complaint filed on behalf of the petitioner-wife against the husband and his relatives including parents. 2. Respondent-husband, after filing reply to the said complaint, had preferred a petition before District Judge, Bilaspur, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by passing a decree of divorce. The said petition is now pending before learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur). On receiving summon (Annexure P4) in the aforesaid divorce petition, petitioner-wife has approached this Court for transfer of the said petition to Shimla. 3. This petition has been opposed by the respondent-husband on the ground that petitioner-wife is misusing the provisions of Section 23 (2) and Section 24 (1) (a) (b) (ii) of Code of Civil Procedure be taking advantage of her womanhood. It has been stated in the reply that petition, sought to be transferred, preferred by the respondenthusband has been filed in the competent Court having the jurisdiction to hear and decide the same and no ground for transfer of the same is made out. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband also submits that in case the matter is transferred to District Court, Shimla, there is a threat to the life of the respondent-husband as on an earlier occasion, during the hearing of the case under Domestic Violence Act at Shimla, he was thrashed by the petitioner-wife, regarding which verbal complaint had been made to the District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has refuted the charges by stating that, in fact, both of them had quarreled with each other and it was the petitioner-wife who was the sufferer and, therefore, petitioner-wife had also lodged a complaint with regard to the said incident with the police. 5. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides jurisdiction and procedure for filing the petitions under this Act, which reads as under: “19. Court to which petition shall be presented. Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction (i) the marriage was solemnised, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petitioner, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.” 6. In present case, it is undisputed that marriage was solemnized at Shimla and petitioner-wife, who is respondent in divorce petition, at the time of presentation of petition, was residing at Shimla. It is also undisputed that at the time of marriage also, petitioner-wife was in service at Shimla and occasionally visiting her matrimonial house in Village Balgard, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur. Therefore, it cannot be said that parties to marriage have last resided together in the said village. In fact, parties, after marriage, ordinarily were residing within local limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of District Judge, Shimla. Subsections (iiia) and (iv) of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not applicable in the present case. So, in present case, divorce petition should have been filed before the District Judge, Shimla. 7. Even otherwise, petitioner-wife has lodged a complaint under Domestic Violence Act against her inlaws in the Courts at Shimla and divorce petition, sought to be transferred, has been preferred thereafter. 8. So, in present case, divorce petition should have been filed before the District Judge, Shimla. 7. Even otherwise, petitioner-wife has lodged a complaint under Domestic Violence Act against her inlaws in the Courts at Shimla and divorce petition, sought to be transferred, has been preferred thereafter. 8. Petitioner-wife is serving as an outsourced worker through contractor in RTO Office, Shimla on contract basis against a meagre salary. Respondent-husband is serving as a District Manager on contract basis in Common Service Center Project, Bilaspur. He is slightly on better footings than the petitioner-wife. 9. It is also settled law of the land that in proceedings, which are outcome of matrimonial discord, convenience of wife has to be looked at and not the inconvenience of husband. {See : Sumita Singh versus Kumar Sanjay and another, (2001) 10 SCC 41; Soma Choudhury versus Gourab Choudhaury, (2004) 13 SCC 462 ; Rajani Kishor Pardeshi versus Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237; Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh versus Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, (2008) 3 SCC 659 ; Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another versus Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, (2008) 9 SCC 353 ; Anjali Ashok Sadhwani versus Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374 ; and Urvashi Rana versus Himanshu Nayyar, Latest HLJ 2016(HP) 925.} 10. So far as contention of the respondent-husband with regard to threat to his life at Shimla is concerned, he is at liberty to take police help by making an appropriate application to this effect, as has been held by the apex Court in case titled Soma Choudhury versus Gourab Choudhaury, reported in (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 462. 11. In view of above discussion, petition is allowed and accordingly, HMA No. 43 of 2017, titled as Susheel Kumar versus Tara Devi, preferred by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending adjudication before the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur), is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla. 12. Learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur), is directed to transmit the record of the said case to the learned District Judge, Shimla, with immediate effect. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Shimla, either personally or through their counsel, on 31st May, 2018, who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 14. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Shimla, either personally or through their counsel, on 31st May, 2018, who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 14. The petition is disposed of in the above terms alongwith all pending applications, if any. No order as to costs. 15. Registry to convey the order forthwith to the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur) as well as learned District Judge, Shimla.