MADHAVI Vs. JAI PRAKASH NARIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called into question the order dated 26-3-2014 (Annexure-G) passed by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in Misc. P. No. 31 of 2014 rejecting the petitioner's petition for the transfer of G and WC No. 174 of 2012 from the Court of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to any other Family Court in Bangalore. Sri S. Sreevatsa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. Prathima Anand for the petitioner submits that when G and WC No. 174 of 2012 was taken up for the cross-examination of the petitioner, the Presiding Officer of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore did not give a pass over. The petitioner made the request for the pass over, as her learned Counsel was held up in some other Court. He submits that the said Presiding Officer sent the Court Staff to secure the presence of the petitioner's learned Counsel. He submits that when the petitioner's side made the application for recalling one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, the said Presiding Officer allowed the said I.A. but insisted that the further cross-examination of the witness takes place on the same day. He submits that some more witness/witnesses may have to be examined on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has genuine apprehension that the said Presiding Officer is biased. He submits that the petitioner is not happy with the treatment being meted out to her.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel submits that if need be the petitioner's side would file the affidavit of the learned Advocate, who appears for her in the Family Court.

(3.) Sri Padmanabha V. Mahale, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P. Prasanna Kumar for the respondent submits that the petitioner keeps changing her Advocates. He submits that every time there is a change in her Advocate, the adjournments are being sought. He submits that she has changed as many as 3-4 Advocates. He submits that by changing the Advocates,, the petitioner is only trying to prolong the matter. He takes serious exception to the delaying tactics being indulged in by the petitioner.