Allowed

Minni Bansal v. Anirudra Agarwal

Uttarakhand HC13 May 2013C24/6/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed a civil transfer application to move a matrimonial suit from the Family Court at Nainital to the Family Court at Rishikesh, primarily due to the applicant's mobility challenges in attending distant court sessions.

What did the court decide?

Civil Suit No. 32 of 2013 transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital to Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

Minni Bansal Vs Anirudra Agarwal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

Civil Transfer Application No. 06 of 2013

¶3

Minni Bansal W/o Anirudra Agarwal W/o S.K. Bansal R/o Naya Gaon, Piliyo, Shimla Bypass Road P.S. Patelnagar, Dehradun

¶4

……………. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Anirudh Agarwal S/o Sri Rakesh Kumar R/o Durga Colony near Dhan Mill Gojajali North Bareilly Road, Haldwani District Nainital

¶7

…………… Respondent

¶8

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, present for the applicant. None present for the respondent even after notices issued to said party.

¶9

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant,J.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

By means of this application moved under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C.) the applicant has sought transfer of suit no. 32 of 2013 Anirudh Agarwal vs. Minni Bansal (filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the husband of the applicant) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun.

¶12

It has been stated in the affidavit filed with the application that applicant being a woman is

¶13

¶14

experiencing too much difficulty in attending the court at Nainital, on every date, which is at a distance of more than 300 kms, from Dehradun.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and after going through the affidavit filed with the application, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, Civil Suit No. 32 of 2013 Anirudh Agarwal vs. Minni Bansal (under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) deserves to be transferred from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital to the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

¶16

Accordingly the application under section 24 of C.P.C. 1908 is allowed. Suit No. 32 of 2013, Anirudh Agarwal vs. Minni Bansal (under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital is transferred to the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, for further proceedings and disposal of the suit. (Interim order dated 22.03.2013 hereby stands vacated).

¶17

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 13.05.2013

¶18

Parul

¶19

Minni Bansal v. Anirudra Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minni Bansal v. Anirudra Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanti and Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar Khanna and Ors.

Syeeda Begum Vs Basant Kumar and Others

Kanwar Dalinderjit Singh Vs Narayan Pal

Employee State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S Bhagwat Prasad Aatam Prakash

Sevak Ram Vs Smt. Chanchal Gupta

Smt Neema Chaisali Vs Sankar Dutt Chaushali