NANDINI CHATTERJEE Vs. ARUP HARI CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under S. 24 of the Code of Civil procedure the applicant Smt. Nandini Chatterjee has prayed for transfer of the Acts (VIII) Case No. 247/96 from the Court of Additional District Judge, 5th Court Alipore to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The grounds on which such a transfer has been sought for may be summarised as follows.

(2.) While the above case was pendingbefore the said Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, O.P. husband Arup Chatterjee filed a petition praying for interim custody of their minor daughter, Anusua Chatterjee, where against the petitioner wife filed a written objection on September 30, 1999. The Presiding Officer of that Court Shri Tushar Bhattacharya who had joined that Court that every month, that is, September, 1999 while dealing with that the petition of the O.P. husband passed orders on different occasions which were not favourable to her and which according to her suffered from various infirmities. For example, on the date which he fixed on October 1, 1999 for appearance of the minor daughter before him in his Chamber, to the surprise of the petitioner, the O.P. husband entered into the Chamber of the Judge with four children, although there was no instruction for taking these other children into his Chamber along with the girl in question and the learned Judge instead of examining the daughter alone allowed entry of these other children into his Chamber and he then put questions to that girl did not touch any relevant aspect of the matter and the petitioner found that in the order passed by the learned Judge he had wrongly quoted her daughter as having expressed her desire to go to her grand parents and the cousins during the ensuing Puja and, further, the learned Judge also made observation that the minor girl was passing her days in a solitary state with her mother. These facts were in fact the product of surmise and conjecture of the learned Judge. Then, again, while allowing the petition of the O.P. husband the learned Judge did not place any reliance on the point repeatedly highlighted by her that the girl being 11 years of age was going to attain the stage of menstruation and at such a stage of adolescence, she required the company of her mother and should not be allowed to be with the father. The Court, thus, allowed the interim custody in favour of the father without properly appreciating the merits of the matter or the points urged by the mother. Secondly, it revealed to the petitioner during the pendency of the case that one Mr. Santi Sekhar Mukherjee being engaged as lawyer for the O.P. husband in connection with that case in question was a close acquaintance of the learned Judge and moreover he used to frequent the chamber of the learned Judge and this gave rise to apprehension in her mind that in such circumstances she might not get justice or fair dealing from the present Presiding Officer of that Court.Thirdly, in the order passed by that Court granting interim custody of the girl in favour of the O.P. husband it has been recorded by the Learned Judge that the girl in question expressed her desire to stay with her father during the Puja days; but when the petitioner asked her daughter, she disclosed that she did not make any such expression of her desire before the learned Judge, nor the learned Judge put any such question to her. Such misquotings of the statement of the minor girl by the learned Judge is found to have recurred in another order granting interim custody of the girl in favour of the father dated 29th March, 2000. This statement is as follows :-

(3.) Such quotings according to the petitioner are incorrect and were made with the motive of paving the way for passing a final order in favour of the O.P. husband. The petitioner is afraid for this also that the Learned Judge may be biased against her.