V. BHASKARAN SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN Vs. GREESHMA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Transfer Petition is preferred seeking transfer of O.P.(G&W)No.275 of 2020 pending before the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Pala or any other Family Court, on the ground that the Family Court Judge at Ettumanoor is prejudiced against the Counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners. Petitioners are the parents of the 4th respondent/husband. The 4th respondent is now abroad and hence he is made a respondent in the proceedings. The 1st respondent is the wife and the respondents 2 and 3 are her parents. The 1st respondent/wife filed O.P.(G&W)No.275 of 2020 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, to which petition, the petitioners and the 4th respondent/husband preferred a counter claim. The 1st respondent herein also filed O.P.(Divorce)No.272 of 2020, which again pending before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The grievance of the petitioners is that several interlocutory applications preferred by the petitioners herein in the Original Petitions afore-referred are not considered by the Family Court Judge. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such applications are either rejected or closed or not considered at all, to the detriment of the petitioners herein. If the matters are not considered and the counsel for the petitioners press for hearing, the Counsel is humiliated by the Judge, who is otherwise prejudiced against the Counsel, since she is an artist, is the allegation raised. It is also alleged in the transfer petition that the Family Court Judge used to shout at the Counsel for the petitioners herein. The matter has reached this Court twice earlier by way of two O.P.(FC)s bearing nos.273/2020 and 508/2023. The former was one preferred by the 4th respondent/husband seeking disposal of two applications pending in the O.P. (G&W) above referred. This aggravated the Judge's prejudice to the petitioners, as also, the 4th respondent herein. According to the petitioners, the Judge is highly prejudiced against the petitioners and their Counsel and they do not expect a fair trial at his hands. In such circumstances, a transfer is sought for to the Family Court, Pala or to any other Family Court. If the matter is transferred to Family Court, Pala, the respondents will not be put to any prejudice at all.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents opposed this application pointing out that the Original Petitions afore-referred were considered by three judicial officers, of which the last judicial officer is the one against whom serious aspersions and allegations are made. As a matter of fact, no order against the petitioners have been passed by the present officer. A transfer sought for on the ground that the Judge is prejudiced against the Counsel for the petitioners, is not a recognizable ground, besides being far from the truth. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Roshini Babu.V.B. v. Anil.K.B. [2023 (1) KHC 493] to articulate that the responsibility of the petitioners while alleging prejudice or bias against the judicial officer is very high and without discharging the same, no transfer could be allowed.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds little merit in the instant Transfer Petition. A perusal of the entire allegations made in this Transfer Petition would reveal that the prejudice alleged is essentially against the Counsel appearing for the petitioners. This Court takes into account the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present officer is the third one, who is handling the Original Petitions afore-referred and that he has not passed any orders against the present petitioners. The allegation is that the interlocutory applications preferred by the petitioners are not being considered. Such a grievance has to be dealt with in accordance with law by taking recourse the remedies available in law; and not by casting aspersions against the Judge and seeking a transfer on that ground.