Uttarakhand High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceFamily Law

Wife Caring For 3-Year-Old Daughter Gets Husband’s Case Moved From Roorkee To Dehradun: Uttarakhand HC

MEGHA VOHRA TYAGIv.SAMEER TYAGI

Wife Caring For 3-Year-Old Daughter Gets Husband’s Case Moved From Roorkee To Dehradun: Uttarakhand HC. MEGHA VOHRA TYAGI vs SAMEER TYAGI. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

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.

It also directed

Any miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the court concerned for compliance.

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, 8

She 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, 6–7

The 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.

¶ 4

The applicant relied on an order granting her custody of the daughter and identified several related proceedings pending in Dehradun.

¶ 5–6

02Issues

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, 6–8

ii.2. Whether the respondent’s objections, including the alleged threat and the distance between the two cities, justified refusing transfer.

¶ 4, 7–8

03Law 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.

¶ 1

The 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.

¶ 7

Provisions 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.

¶ 7

It also considered the related cases pending in Dehradun and concluded that transfer there was bona fide.

¶ 7

On those grounds, it allowed the application; it did not separately analyse the respondent’s allegations or the travel-distance objection.

¶ 4, 7–8

05Holding

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.

¶ 8

Any miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the court concerned for compliance.

¶ 9–10
Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF

MEGHA VOHRA TYAGIvsSAMEER TYAGI

Uttarakhand High Court · October 31, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment