R LAXMINARAYANA Vs. B RAMYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/husband filed Transfer C.M.P. under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of O.P.No.260/2000 from the file of Family Judge, Hyderabad so also from Lok Adalat, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to any other District Court-Family Court for impartial enquiry.

(2.) No doubt, in the prayer it is referred to as"......with further referring the matter to Lok Adalat". But however, the counsel for the petitioner states that it is a mistake and it is ".......without further referring the matter to Lok Adalat" since all the allegations made by him will definitely support his stand in this regard.

(3.) Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy, counsel representing the respondent had advanced elaborate arguments relating to the allegations made in the respective pleadings of the parties and also the other material available on record. In nut-shell, the question involved in the Transfer C.M.P. only boils down to this point to the effect that the petitioner/husband contending that though he is an unwilling party to have the settlement before the Lok Adalat, the learned Presiding Officer virtually had threatened him and forced to have a settlement and the same is not justifiable. It is also brought to my notice that now the Presiding Officer is a different Officer. Hence, I am not inclined to express any opinion about several of the allegations made in this regard, but suffice for me to state that the parties are expected to be careful and cautious while making allegations in Transfer C.M.Ps. since such allegations may on several occasions result in the initiation of contempt proceedings as well. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the then Presiding Officer is not the present Presiding Officer, I am not inclined to make any further comments relating to the remarks or otherwise made in this regard.