ABRAHAM THOMAS PUTHOORAN Vs. MANJU ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks transfer of a proceeding on the allegation of bias against the Presiding Officer of the Family Court.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2 in the transfer petition - the wife and daughter of the petitioner - have instituted O.P. 2364/2017 and M.C 119/2016 before the Family Court, Ernakulam (in short 'Court'), seeking a decree for return of money, gold ornaments and maintenance from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner asserts in the transfer petition that he has lost faith, trust and confidence in the Court because the Presiding Officer is prejudiced. The Presiding Officer is not ready to either hear the submissions or look into the precedents pointed out by his counsel. The petitioner apprehends that there will be no meritorious disposal of the cases. On 7/7/2021, when the counsel for the respondents insisted for a consideration of an application through the virtual court, the Presiding Officer directed the counsel and the parties to be present in the physical court on the same day at 1.00 p.m. Then the Presiding Officer pressurised the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance. When his counsel tried to oppose the direction, the Presiding Officer adjourned the cases to 12/7/2021 but observed that:-"if you are sticking onto your earlier stand even now, I will show you". The observation was unwarranted and reveals that the Presiding Officer is biased. After the sitting was over, an office staff made enquiries about the 1st respondent. The petitioner told the staff that the 1st respondent had left. The staff said that the Presiding Officer wanted to meet the 1st respondent in the chambers, which surprised the petitioner. Meeting a party to a dispute in the chambers, without notice to the other side, was unfair. The petitioner is constrained to believe that something seriously prejudicial to him dehors the merits of the case is bound to happen. In Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that in maintenance cases the applicants should file a concise affidavit disclosing their assets, which has not been complied with by the respondents. The Court is not paying heed to the non-compliance of the above direction. On 12/7/2021, when the cases were called in the virtual court, the Presiding Officer again directed both parties to be present in the physical court. The Presiding Officer was reluctant to hear the submission of the petitioner and insisted him to bring his counsel who was laid up. The Presiding Officer declared in the open court that she had not called the 1st respondent to meet her in the chambers, but later in the virtual court she admitted that she had enquired about the 1st respondent to explore the possibility of a settlement. The observations, acts and omissions of the Presiding Officer are neither judicial nor judicious. Hence O.P.2364/2017 may be transferred to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.