Transfer of a case cannot be ordered merely on a perceived notion of bias, and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for a transfer.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 43630/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 1374/2023 & CM APPL. 43629/2023

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned `Principal Judge.) in Misc. DJ no.52/2023, titled Pankaj Jain v. Parul Jain, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) for transfer of the Guardianship Petition No. 54 of 2018, titled Pankaj Jain v. Parul Jain, pending adjudication before the learned Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter referred to as the learned "Family Court").

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an apparent bias of the learned Family Court against the petitioner herein. In support, he submits that the petitioner herein had filed objections dated 08.06.2023 against the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the respondent herein. The learned Family Court, without supplying a copy of the order purported to have been passed on this application, insisted upon the petitioner to conduct the cross examination of the respondent on 03.08.2023, when the case was fixed for that purpose. The learned Family Court, in fact, insisted that the cross-examination be concluded on that very date whereas the respondent had been granted 23 days spanning more than 50 hours to cross-examine the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had also filed an application before the learned Family Court seeking adjournment of the proceedings on 05.08.2023, which was also disallowed by the learned Family Court.

5. He submits that the learned Family Court, by an order dated 11.07.2023, had also issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner on an application filed by the respondent, without even issuing notice on such application to the petitioner herein.

6. He submits that the learned Family Court had also passed various other orders particularly, orders dated 22.03.2023, 25.03.2023, 01.04.2023 and 05.07.2023, which in the opinion of the petitioner, reveal an ingrained bias of the learned Family Court against the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the cross- examination of the respondent conducted on 03.08.2023, various pertinent questions were put by the petitioner to the respondent, especially with respect to the proceedings of the Court Counsellor appointed by the learned Judge to take over the custody of the child. The same were, however, disallowed by the learned Family Court.

8. He submits that the above shows an inherent bias of the learned Family Court against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had sought transfer of the cases from the particular learned Judge, Family Court to another Judge, Family Court.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal Judge, in its Impugned Order, has, however, failed to take note of the above circumstances and has wrongfully dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking the transfer of the case.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on an advance notice, submits that the present petition is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. She submits that the petitioner, instead of challenging the order dated 03.08.2023, has filed an application seeking transfer of the cases in an attempt to forum shop.

11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

12. It needs no reiteration that the transfer of the case from one Judge to another cannot be ordered merely on a perceived notion of bias in a litigant. The Court is to pass orders, which may be against the interest of one or the other party. The same, however, does not reflect any bias of the learned Jud