VIJAYA RANI BHANOT Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife. She filed this transfer petition through G.P.A., holder who is the 2nd respondent, seeking transfer of O.P.No.200 of 2004 filed by the 1st respondent, who is her husband, on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar to the Family Court, at Secunderabad or Hyderabad or any other Court at Rangareddy, on the ground that the President Officer of I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District may act in a biased manner.

(3.) The case of the General Power of Attorney in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition is that the marriage of the petitioner with 1st respondent was performed on 5.7.1991 at Mehtab Function Palace, Tarnaka, Secunderabad and they were blessed with a female child M.S. Lithisha Mangoot on 14.9.1995. The 1st respondent at the time of marriage was unemployed and the petitioner was a postgraduate in Commerce and has working experience as a Lecturer at Sanghi College, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. The father of the 1st respondent was running a chit fund and the 1st respondent worked as foreman and when the said chit fund business went into losses, the 1st respondent requested the petitioner to work abroad and accordingly through some placement agency, she was selected to work at Maldives and the 1st respondent went to Trivendram Airport from Hyderabad to see her off and it is alleged that subsequently, the 1st respondent filed O.P.No.31/2000 on the file of Principal Senior civil Judge, Rangareddy District for dissolution of marriage and on a joint memo filed by the parties, the matter ended in compromise before the Lok Adalat on 28.6.2002, dissolving the marriage and as per the terms of compromise, the permanent custody of the baby child was given to the petitioner and that the petitioner has also given undertaking to maintain the child out of her own income. It is stated that the petitioner also filed a complaint under Sections 341, 354, 420 and 498-A I.P.C. read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibtiion Act, before the concerned police station and later it was committed to the court of III Senior Assistant Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Rangareddy and numbered as S.C.No.286/2002. The petitioner got visa to U.S.A. and she went to U.S.A., keeping the minor child in the custody of the G.P.A.holder and 3rd respondent, who is the father of the petitioner, making adequate financial arrangements. As the immigration papers of the petitioner are still for consideration in Immigration and Nationalization Authorities of U.S.A., the visa papers of minor child baby Latisha are still under process. While so, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1931/2003 in O.P.No.31/2000 seeking custody of the child and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed O.P.No.200/04 for custody of the minor child, the said O.P. was returned number of times with objections and it is alleged that the said O.P. was numbered even without complying with the objections. In the said O.P.No.200/2004 the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.718/2004 for interim custody of the minor child and the same was disposed of on 30.4.2004 giving the custody of the minor child for the period from 20.5.2004 to 27.5.2004. The 1st respondent also filed C.R.P.No.2838/04 challenging the order-dated 30.4.2004 and the same was disposed of directing remand of the matter and latter it was closed as not pressed. In O.P.No.200/2004, the P.W.1 was examined and again he filed petition to reopen the evidence and to recall P.W.1 for further evidence and the same is pending. The 1st respondent again filed another I.A. seeking custody of the minor child during summer vacation and the same was being opposed by the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. It is alleged that the petitioner learnt that the brother- in-law of the Hon'ble Presiding Officer and his relatives are the clients of the counsel on record for the 1st respondent in the said O.P. It is sated that they reliably learnt that even the President Officer has visited the office of the counsel for the 1st respondent along with his relatives in some other matters. It is stated that the 1st respondent is openly proclaiming that all the proceedings in that court will be in his favour. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends that the Presiding Officer will not act in an unbiased or in an impartial manner. It is stated that even various observations made by the Presiding Officer in this proceeding make the petitioner to believe that the she may not get a fair or impartial trial or that justice will be delivered impartially. Therefore, the present transfer petition is filed seeking transfer.