HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Transfer Petition No. 23 of 2021

Prakhar Aditya Sharma

…....... Petitioner

Vs.

Teena Rawat and others

……...... Respondents

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant petition has been preferred under

Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short, “the Code”) for transferring the proceedings of Misc.

Criminal Case No.13 of 2020, Teena Rawat vs. Prakhar

Aditya Sharma and others under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(for short, “the Act”), pending in the court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal to the court of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District

Dehradun.

2.

The respondent no.1 is wife of the petitioner.

An application under Section 12 of the Act has been filed

2

by the respondent no.1 in the court of Judicial

Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that the

proceedings have been initiated just to torture and harass

the petitioner and his family members; the complaint

under Section 12 of the Act is frivolous, which has been

filed with false allegations. The grounds for transferring,

as mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner may

not be able to incur the expenses in travelling from Muni-

ki-Reti to the court to the Pauri Garhwal; the respondent

no.1 is a Police Officer; she has source of income and she

may

conveniently

attend

the

proceedings

in

the

Rishikesh’s court.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the distance from Muni-ki-Reti, Rishikesh to

Pauri Garhwal is more than 100 Kms and all the three

members of the petitioner’s family are required to appear

in the court at Pauri Garhwal, which is much

inconvenient. It is also submitted that in the court at

Pauri Garhwal, short dates are being fixed in the case,

3

which requires the petitioner to attend frequently the

court. Apart from it, the learned counsel would also

submit that if the parties are called in this Court, perhaps

with the quality of mediation that may be undertaken

here, the parties may resolve the issue amicably.

6.

The wife has filed a complaint under the Act in

a court having jurisdiction. Even if, two or more courts

have jurisdiction, it is up to a litigant to exercise the

discretion with regard to the court, where he intends to

initiate the proceedings, as per law. The proceedings may

be transferred, if there are reasons to do so. Mere

inconvenience to attend the court may not at the first

instance be a ground to transfer any proceeding.

Particularly, when it is not suggested that the petitioner

has no means to travel. It is comparative convenience. If it

is inconvenient to the petitioner to attend the court at

Pauri Garhwal, how could this Court at this moment

assume that it would be convenient for the respondent

no.1 to attend the court at Muni-ki-Reti, Rishikesh? Even

otherwise, parties may seek exemption from appearing in

the court and this Court has no doubt that if such an

application is moved, the court would be liberal in

granting such exemption if the parties are represented

4

before the court and/or unless their personal appearance

is necessary. In so far as mediation is concerned, such

efforts may definitely be made in the court, where the

case is pending.

7.

Having considered, this Court is of the view

that there are no grounds to consider the transfer of the

proceedings, therefore, the petition deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

20.10.2021

Sanjay