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
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
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
