The judicial discretion of the Presiding Officer and the lack of substantiated grounds for transfer were central to the court's decision.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the respondent-wife in M. C. 106/93 on the file of the Additional Family Judge, Bangalore. The 1st respondent herein, the husband, moved the aforesaid matrimonial case under Section 13 (1) (i) and (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that the application is made reckless and vexatious allegations, attributing to the life of the petitioner and that of her sister. It is averred that the petitioner is residing in Bombay and, according to her, she is made to travel to Bangalore for the purpose of conducting the case. She filed the present civil petition seeking transfer of M. C. No. 106/95 from the file of the Additional Family Judge, Bangalore, to any other Court having competent jurisdiction in the interests of justice and equity.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent has opposed the application and has brought to the notice of this Court several facts. The allegation made in the transfer petition is that the Presiding Officer is showing undue haste and interest in the case which creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the Presiding Officer. She has referred to certain uncharitable remarks made by the Presiding Officer at para 6 of her transfer petition, wherein it is alleged that the Presiding Officer stated that "since the party is young, he is taking up the matter and the old cases are dead and, therefore, he will proceed to the case. According to her, these remarks of the Presiding Officer" have given an impression in her mind that she will not get fair treatment at the hands of the Presiding Officer. Besides this, the petitioner has alleged in para 8 of the transfer petition, the conducts of the lst respondent and his father in the matter of their habit of trying to influence the Presiding Officer. She says that a suit was filed by the 1st respondent and his father; that the 1st respondent and his father had approached the then Presiding Officer Shri Umesh Shetty and that the 1st respondent and his father were admonished by the said Presiding Officer. According to her, they adopted the same method with another Presiding Officer Shri T. S. Lakshminarayana Rao. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent's father, was admonished by a sitting Judge of this Court in the open Court for having attempted to influence him by meeting him at his residence. Like that, in another case an attempt was allegedly made by the 1st respondent and his father to influence the Presiding Officer Shri Linga Reddy. The petitioner alleges that she saw the 1st respondent near the Chamber of the Presiding Officer trying the M. C case and this circumstance coupled with the remarks made by the Presiding Officer in the open Court has given an impression in her mind that she will not get justice in the case.

( 3 ) THE respondent has stated that the intention of the petitioner is to protract the matter unduly. He has also stated that the 2nd respondent did not at all appear before the Court and that he was set ex parte. Thereafter the ex parte was set aside. He then filed an application to delete him from the party array. This application was dismissed. Challenging this order, he filed a writ petition before this Court which was also dismissed. Against the said order, he has filed an appeal which is pending. It is averred that the 1st respondent has appeared only thrice before the Family Court. According to the 1st respondent, the method now adopted by the petitioner shows that she has, an intention to protract the matter. 3a. In view of the allegations made by the petitioner in this case, I called for the remarks of the Presiding Officer. A detailed reply has been submitted by the Presiding Officer in which every allegations made by the petitioner has been denied. As regards the alleged statement made by the Presiding Officer in the open Court, he has clearly denied the same. He has stated in particular as fo