Uttarakhand High Court
Garima vs Manvendra Singh on 18 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 31 of 2025
Garima ........Applicant
Versus
Manvendra Singh ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari and Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocates for
the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant seeks transfer of the Original Suit No.601 of 2024, Manvendra Singh Vs. Garima ("the suit"), under Sections 13 (1)(a) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the court of Additional Principal Judge (First), Family Court, Dehradun, to the competent Family Court at Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The applicant is the resident of Roorkee, District Haridwar. According to her, on 20.05.2024, the respondent filed the suit against her on frivolous grounds before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun; both the applicant and the respondent are permanent residents of Roorkee; the applicant is a single woman without independent financial means, and it is extremely difficult for her to attend proceedings at Dehradun on each and every date; on the other hand, the respondent is financially sound businessman and the former Chairman of Jhabrera Town, Tehsil Roorkee; he is in a better position to attend the proceedings in the court at Roorkee. It is also the case of the applicant that the minor daughter of the parties is still studying at Roorkee and resides along with the respondent and his family.
4. The respondent was issued notice. He has filed his objections. It is the case of the respondent that he is a political figure 2 and the applicant has made false allegations against him. The respondent genuinely fears for his safety at Roorkee.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent both are permanent residents of Roorkee; in fact, the entire family of the respondent stays in Roorkee; the daughter of the parties is also staying in the respondent's family at Roorkee; there are other proceedings between the parties, which are pending in the court at Roorkee; the respondent is a business man and a political figure in District Haridwar. On the other hand, it is argued that the applicant has no means to survive; it is difficult for her to attend the proceedings at Dehradun Court. Therefore, the suit may be transferred in a competent court at Roorkee.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit has been filed on false grounds; the respondent is a political figure in Roorkee, District Haridwar, and in order to tarnish his image, the instant application has been filed; if the case is transferred at Roorkee, it may adversely affect the political life of the respondent.
7. On being asked, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is permanent resident of Roorkee, and the daughter of the parties is staying with the respondent's parents at Roorkee. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that in the State of Uttarakhand, there are video conferencing rules and the applicant need not appear personally on each date on the proceedings of the suit. She may get her evidence recorded through video conferencing.
8. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers the Court to transfer a suit from one court to another court. Admittedly, in the instant case, the parties are permanent residents of Roorkee. In fact, it is admitted that the daughter of the parties is staying at Roorkee with the family of the respondent. However, according to the applicant, it is the family of the respondent with 3 whom her daughter is staying. It is admitted case of the respondent that he has political roots at Roorkee, and his family is permanently settled at Roorkee.
9. During the course of arguments, it is also argued on behalf of the respondent that, in fact, as the applicant was not agreeable to stay with the parents of the respondent, therefore, the respondent, in compulsion, had to purchase a flat at Dehradun, where both the parties were staying.
10. Although, in his objections, the respondent has stated that he fears for his life in Roorkee, but it is an assertion, which is unsubstantiated by any material. The roots of the respondent are in Roorkee. His family is settled in Roorkee. He himself is politically active in Roorkee.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the suit may be transferred from the court of Additional Principal Judge (First), Family Court, Dehradun, to the competent court at Roorkee. Accordingly, the civil transfer application deserves to be allowed.
12. The civil transfer application is allowed.
13. Original Suit No.601 of 2024, Manvendra Singh Vs. Garima, is transferred from the court of Additional Principal Judge (First), Family Court, Dehradun, to the Family Court at Roorkee, District Haridwar.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to both the courts.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 18.09.2025 Ravi Bisht