HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 33 of 2025 Deepali Bajwa Gupta ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant application under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“the BNSS”), the applicant seeks transfer of Criminal Case No.70 of 2023, Deepali Bajwa Gupta and Another Vs. Aneep Gupta (“the case”), pending in the court of the Principal Family Judge, Dehradun, to another judge of Family Court, District Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance, in which affidavit to examination in chief has also been filed by the applicant, but till date, she has not been cross-examined, and on 01.08.2025, the court had directed the applicant to come along with her son. It is argued that on the one hand, interim maintenance application has not been decided, and on the other hand, such order has been passed directing the applicant to bring her son also on the next date of hearing; these circumstances has compelled the applicant to seek transfer of the case to some other court. 4. Under Section 447 of the BNSS, a criminal case may be transferred provided the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. The order sheet of the case is filed by the applicant. It is true that the case 2 is pending for a long, but it is not that the applicant has not sought any adjournment. The order dated 20.09.2024 reveals that, in fact, on that date when adjournment was sought by the other party, it was allowed subject to Rs.500 cost. On 18.01.2025, the applicant did file affidavit in her examination in chief. Thereafter, on the next date, the applicant herself remained absent, and her adjournment was allowed subject to cost. On the next date also, adjournment was sought by the applicant, which was allowed, and the next date was fixed for 22.02.2025. Thereafter also, adjournments were sought by both the parties. 5. It is true that on 01.08.2025, the court had directed the applicant to bring her son also on the next date of hearing, but this may not be a ground to transfer the case. If the applicant is aggrieved by any order, it may be challenged before appropriate forum. Insofar as disposal of interim maintenance application is concerned, it may be pressed before the court below. In cases pertaining to maintenance, it is always expected of that if any interim maintenance application is filed, it is disposed of before proceeding further. 6. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to transfer the case. Accordingly, the instant transfer application deserves to be dismissed. 7. The instant transfer application is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 04.09.2025 Ravi Bisht