Uttarakhand High Court
C24/90/2025 of PRAMILA GOYAL Vs NIDHI SHARMA on 21 November 2025
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Transfer Application No. 90 of 2025 Smt. Pramila Goyal and another ...Applicants Versus Smt. Nidhi Sharma ... Respondent Present:- Ms. Shobha Mehra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the applicants. Judgment Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Transfer Application No. 90 of 2025
Smt. Pramila Goyal and another
...Applicants
Versus
Smt. Nidhi Sharma
... Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Shobha Mehra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the applicants.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicants seek transfer of Misc. Case No. 206 of 2024, Nidhi Sharma Vs. Dipanshu Goyal and others (“the case”), under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”) from the court at Haridwar to the court at Roorkee or any other court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
3. The respondent had file an application under Section 12 of the Act which is basis of the case. It is pending in the court at Haridwar.
4. It is the case of the applicants that the brothers of the respondent are active and practicing Advocates in the same court complex where the case is pending and it gives rise to genuine and reasonable apprehension in the mind of the applicants that the court proceedings may be influenced. Thereby impartiality and fairness may be compromised. On these and other grounds transfer of the case has been sought.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the brother of the respondent is a practicing Advocate in the Haridwar
2 court. Therefore, the applicants apprehend that they may not get a fair trial. Therefore, the case may be transferred.
6. Mere on allegations that one of the relatives of the party is a practicing Advocate, the case may not be transferred. Mere these allegations may not doubt the impartiality and independence of judiciary. The applicants are residents of Bhatinda, Punjab. The respondent stays at Haridwar where the case is pending.
7. Having considered, there is no reason to transfer the case from the court at Haridwar to any other court. Accordingly, the transfer application deserves to be dismissed.
8. The transfer application is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 21.11.2025 Jitendra