RANJAN KUMARI DAS Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for transfer of C.P. No.193 of 2003 from the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to any other Court within the Judgeship of Cuttack.

(2.) The aforesaid suit has been filed by the opposite party under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. From the record, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party was solemnized as per Hindu rituals and customs at Cuttack on 3rd February, 1982. The opposite party is serving in Bank of Baroda whereas the petitioner is serving as a Lecturer in English and because of their posting at different places they occasionally used to stay together according to their convenience either at the place of posting of opposite party or at the place of posting of the petitioner. They were blessed with two sons. In December, 1991, the opposite party was posted at Bhubaneswar but the petitioner did not want to stay with him and preferred to stay with her parents. This led to an unpleasant relationship between both of them resulting in maladjustment and destruction of marital life. The further case of the opposite party in the petition is that since December, 1991 both of them are practically staying away from each other and have not been lived together. Now the suit is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for disposal.

(3.) This application for transfer of the case has been filed alleging misconduct on the part of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Shri S.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention to the Court to some orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court quoted in paragraphs 9, 13, 16, 23 and 29 of the petition to substantiate his claim that the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is not acting impartially and certain comments have been made in the quoted orders for which the petitioner apprehends that she may not get justice from the said Court. From the order dated 26.11.2005 quoted in paragraph 9, it appears that an effort was made to re-unite both the parties by suggesting them to have a lunch in any hotel at Cuttack together. The order quoted in paragraph 13 of the petition relates to the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court on 2.1.2006. From the said order, it appears that though the opposite party was present before the Court, the petitioner sought for adjournment. The Court observed that in spite of giving time up to 12 noon, no body turned up on behalf of the petitioner whereas the opposite party who is a Bank Officer posted at Calcutta has come all the way to attend the Court. In view of the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner, it was observed by the Court that for her absence the Court shows mala fide. Serious objection was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the aforesaid remark made by the Court due to absence of the petitioner on that date was uncalled for. The order dated 13.1.2006 is quoted in paragraph 16. In the said order the trial Court observed that P.W.1 was examined and cross-examined and some irrelevant questions were put to the such witness in cross-examination and representation of lawyers in the case is making the proceeding same as a proceeding in a regular civil Court. It was further observed by the Court that relying on the statement made by the counsel before him, he had allowed the counsel to appear on behalf of the parties but in the absence of the order from this Court, the Presiding Officer decided to adjourn the case to produce the orders passed by this Court allowing advocates to appear on behalf of the parties. The order dated 27.3.2006 is quoted in paragraphs 23 of the petition. The said order only relates to representation of advocates on behalf of the parties and on reading of the entire order, I do not see any remark made against the present petitioner. Similarly, other orders quoted in the petition do not indicate anything so as to gather an impression that the Presiding Officer is not acting impartially. The only sentence on which much reliance is placed by the petitioner is the remark made by the Court in its order dated 3.1.2006 where the Court observed that the absence of the petitioner shows mala fide.