01Facts
The applicant sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of Case No. 566 of 2025, pending before the Ist Additional Principal Judge, Roorkee, to the Principal Family Judge, Dehradun.
¶ 1, 8She stated that she lived in Dehradun with her three-year-old daughter and that travelling to Roorkee to attend the proceedings would cause hardship.
¶ 2–3, 6–7The respondent opposed transfer, alleging that the applicant’s family had assaulted and threatened him, and arguing that the journey between Roorkee and Dehradun was manageable.
¶ 4The applicant relied on an order granting her custody of the daughter and identified several related proceedings pending in Dehradun.
¶ 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the pending case should be transferred from Roorkee to Dehradun in view of the applicant’s circumstances and the convenience of attending proceedings.
¶ 1, 3, 6–8ii.2. Whether the respondent’s objections, including the alleged threat and the distance between the two cities, justified refusing transfer.
¶ 4, 7–803Law Applied
The application invoked Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which the High Court may transfer a proceeding between courts within its jurisdiction.
¶ 1The Court applied that transfer power by considering the applicant’s practical ability to attend the case, her responsibility for her young daughter, and the existence of related proceedings at the proposed destination.
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115Section 333Section 351Section 352
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 23
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 7Section 10
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 144
04Reasoning
The Court found that requiring the applicant, who was residing in Dehradun and caring for her three-year-old daughter, to attend proceedings in Roorkee would cause inconvenience.
¶ 7It also considered the related cases pending in Dehradun and concluded that transfer there was bona fide.
¶ 7On those grounds, it allowed the application; it did not separately analyse the respondent’s allegations or the travel-distance objection.
¶ 4, 7–805Holding
The Court allowed the transfer application and ordered Case No. 566 of 2025 to be transferred from the Ist Additional Principal Judge, Roorkee, to the Principal Family Judge, Dehradun.
¶ 8Any miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the court concerned for compliance.
¶ 9–10Original Court PDF
MEGHA VOHRA TYAGIvsSAMEER TYAGI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
