HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Transfer Application C24 No. 01 of 2011 Smt. Purnima Makholiya. …Applicant Versus Shri Bhuwan Chandra Makholiya. …Respondent. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for respondent. Dated: September 27 , 2011: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Instant transfer application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Purnima Makholiya seeking transfer of Suit No. 17 of 2010 ‘Bhuwan Chandra Makholiya vs. Smt. Purnima Makholiya and others’, pending in the Court of District Judge, Pithoragarh to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Nainital, District Nainital. 3. Ground taken in the transfer application is that the respondent is an influential person and is arranging that the summons be issued in very hasty manner. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant referred the dates of two summons issued by the Court concerned, one of which belongs to 10th December, 2010 and another belongs to 12th December, 2010, sent to the applicant fixing 16.12.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that these summons were sent on 10th December, 2010, in one envelop, by registered post. With the help of this assertion, learned counsel for the applicant tried to establish that the respondent, on 2 account of his influence, obtained short dates in said divorce suit from the Court below. But this contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is incorrect, in view of the fact that in the suit, the date is always fixed by the Court concerned. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant filed a case no. 274 of 2010 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 1st December, 2010, which is pending in the district Court Nainital, and only thereafter, the respondent, in order to harass the applicant, filed the divorce suit. On the other hand, Shri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the respondent replied and argued that in fact, the divorce suit was filed prior to the case filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to him, divorce suit was filed on 1st November, 2010 whereas, case no. 274 of 2010 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 1st December, 2010. It is true that the divorce suit was filed prior to the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and factual aspect of the matter is that the notice of divorce suit was issued, subsequent to the case filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I am of the view that filing of a particular case, earlier than another, does not matter much, while deciding the transfer application. Third ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of adultery, therefore, in case, the applicant is compelled to go Pithoragarh alone, she will face humiliation while attending the Court proceedings. He further submitted that the respondent is an influential person and will harass the applicant. On this, the learned counsel for the respondent replied that this apprehension of the applicant is baseless, because Court proceedings are always held in proper manner without discrimination. He further 3 contended that ground of adultery has to be proved by adducing evidence before the Court. He also submitted that the applicant has not attended the Court proceedings, even once. He requested that the claim of the applicant should be dismissed on this ground alone. He also submitted that the applicant has illicit relations with one Raghuvir Singh, who is involved in criminal activities and respondent apprehends that in case, the divorce suit is transferred in district Court Nainital, he will be manhandled by him 4. Shri Pooran Singh Rawat, the learned counsel for the applicant referred the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court, rendered in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, reported in (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases-41 and submitted that where the husband is seeking a decree of divorce, it is the wife, whose inconvenience must be seen and prayed that in view of this judgment, the application of the applicant, seeking transfer of the said case from the Court of District Judge, Pithoragarh to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Nainital, District Nainital, deserves to be allowed. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record. I am of the view that the applicant is a young lady and for attending the Court proceedings, she is required to go from Haldwani, which will take at least 7 hours. In these circumstances, I find the submission, advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, to be genuine that it will be more inconvenient for the applicant to go Pithoragarh for attending the Court proceedings. I am satisfied with the argument advanced 4 by the learned counsel for the applicant that where a suit for divorce is filed by the husband against his wife, in such case, inconvenience of the wife must be looked at. 6. In view of the forgoing discussions, the application is allowed. Suit No. 17 of 2010 ‘Bhuwan Chandra Makholiya vs. Smt. Purnima Makholiya and others’, pending in the Court of District Judge, Pithoragarh is transferred to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Nainital, District Nainital for its hearing and disposal, in accordance with law. Let the record of the said case be transferred accordingly. (V.K. Bist, J.) 27.09.2011 NCM: