HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 74 of 2024 Sangeeta Rani ….....Applicant Versus Santosh Kumar ….….Respondent Present:- Ms. Shruti Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and Mr. M.C. Upadhyay, Advocates for the respondent/Opposite party. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant seeks transfer of the Divorce Suit No.95 of 2021, Santosh Kumar Vs. Sangeeta Rani (“the suit”), under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Family Court, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, to the Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is still studying; she is pursuing her research in a college in Haldwani; it takes a lot of time and other resources to attend the court’s proceeding in Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. Therefore, the interest of justice would be better served if the suit is transferred from the Family Court, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, to the Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the applicant merely wants protract to the trial of the suit; the suit was finally heard and it was reserved for judgment, when the transfer petition has been filed, and the proceedings of the suit has been stayed; against an order passed in the suit, the applicant had filed an appeal in this Court, and when stay was not granted in that proceedings, the appellant filed the instant transfer petition. 2 5. The ordersheet of the suit has been filed by the opposite party, which reveals that, in fact, in the suit, final arguments have already been heard. Thereafter the applications were filed by the applicant. One of such applications was rejected in the suit on 28.08.2024, and the suit was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 27.09.2024. It is in between the applicant filed instant transfer application, which was taken up for hearing on 13.09.2024. 6. This Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the applicant as to why this fact was not revealed in this transfer application that the suit is fixed for judgment now, and nothing is required to be done? She admits that on 28.08.2024, the court in the suit had already fixed 27.09.2024 for the pronouncement of judgment, but had given liberty to the applicant to argue on any day in between. 7. The next question is as to why this fact is not stated in the transfer application? She submits that it is a mistake. 8. The suit is fixed for judgment. There is no question of transfer of the suit at this stage. Accordingly, the transfer application deserves to be dismissed. 9. The transfer application is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 21.08.2025 Ravi Bisht