The transfer of proceedings was deemed unjustified, as familial relationships with court staff do not imply bias, reaffirming judicial independence.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, the wife, is aggrieved with the impugned judgment by which, on the request of the husband, the second respondent herein, the proceedings in C.C. No.136 of 2023, initiated on the complaint of the appellant, pending in the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy was transferred to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The wife, impleaded as respondent there, had not appeared in the matter. The impugned order directed transmission of the case within one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order with intimation to the other side.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the ex parte order of transfer was unmindful of the travails of a woman left alone with two children to prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown. It is also contended that the facts of the case unfold a reprehensible deceitful conduct on the part of the husband which further should have restrained the High Court from transferring the case. It is also specifically pointed out that the allegation of bias on which the transfer petition was filed was based on the fact that a relative of the wife was employed as a Junior Assistant in the District Court at Sangareddy and another relative was working as Head Constable in the Women Police Station at Sangareddy, where the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class was situated. The bias alleged was the influence exerted by the above two. It is specifically pointed out from Annexure P-1 in the rejoinder that the Junior Assistant was transferred from the District Court under which the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class was functioning.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband specifically referred to the counter affidavit filed wherein it was stated that the appellant’s brother-in-law is a Head Constable in the Sangareddy Police Station and her sister- in-law who is a Senior Assistant in the District Court at Sangareddy along with her brothers, who are politicians were influencing the police and the Court staff, perpetrating harassment on the husband, the second respondent herein.

5. On facts, we cannot but notice some which are relevant to understand what transpired between the parties, though the subject matter is only a transfer effected. The appellant and the second respondent were married in the year 2007 and they proceeded to the United States of America where the second respondent was working. They returned to India later and it is the contention of the appellant that due to persistent mental cruelty and harassment, a crime was registered at the Raidurgam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District and as a counterblast in the year 2010, the second respondent filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. In 2011, a settlement was reached, on the mediation of elders and the parties joined together. A compromise was entered into which was produced in an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the husband, against the criminal proceedings pending against him, as initiated by the wife, which was allowed by an order dated 13.02.2013 as is evident from Annexure P-2. However, the husband surreptitiously continued the proceedings of divorce and Annexure P-1 order of divorce was obtained on 13.02.2013 which was never brought to the notice of the wife; especially when Annexure P-2 was passed six days later to the order of divorce, which was not disclosed.

6. After joining husband in USA in 2014, appellant gave birth to a male child on 16.10.2015 at USA and a fe