A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. In these petitions, three separate proceedings viz, O.P Nos.115/2011, 888/2011 & 2048/2011 relating to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, are sought to be transferred to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, alleging bias against the Presiding Officer.

2. O.P.Nos.115/2011 and 888/2011 were filed by the petitioner seeking custody of the minor child and for dissolution of marriage. O.P.No.2048/2011 was filed by the wife of the petitioner seeking recovery of ornaments and realisation of money from the petitioner. Petitioner's wife figures as the sole respondent in Tr.P.C.No.368/2012 and as the first respondent in the other transfer petitions.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15/02/2008 and their wedlock is blessed with a girl child. The petitioner's wife is an Advocate by profession who is practicing before various courts at Ernakulam, including this Court as well as the neighbouring sub centres. The strained relationship between the parties led to the proceedings before the Family Court, Ernakulam.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the adjudication process before the court below his wife is misusing her profession as an Advocate and is attempting to make benefits out of the same standing in a position as a lawyer practicing in the same court as well. According to the petitioner his interest is being sidelined and he seriously apprehends that the proceedings may have a tendency to be one sided i.e., against him. He would state that his apprehension is reasonable and thus, seeks transfer of the aforesaid three petitions now pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.

5. Arguments have been heard and the records as well as the impugned orders were perused.

6. This Court obtained remarks from the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Ernakulam, as regards the contents of the transfer petitions through the Registry. The learned Family Court Judge has reported that more than 4500 cases are pending before her and cases at an average rate of three to five are being taken to her Chambers for counseling on almost all days, that too, at the request of both parties. She would state that, it is for the first time in her official career of thirty four years, such an allegation was made against her. She has emphatically denied the allegation as false and frivolous. It was stated that there are a good number of cases pending before that court where Advocates practicing before difference courts are parties and the respondent is only one among them. Though the learned Judge has stated that she has no objection in transferring these cases from that court, it was asserted by her that she has the confidence to dispose of the cases pending before her with utmost impartiality and without any bias.

7. Following are the allegations raised in these petitions:

i) The respondent was given undue importance whenever the issues between the parties were deliberated. The respondent's status as a practicing lawyer is given much importance.

ii) Direction to provide interim maintenance to the respondent was given by the Judge, though it was submitted that the petitioner was broken financially.

iii) An Advocate Commissioner who was deputed to verify the deposits in the bank and certain other things did not file the report in time and in spite of pressing urgency pointed out by the petitioner, no direction was given to the Advocate Commissioner to file the report within a reasonable time.

iv) An application was filed by the respondent in which the prayer made is to advance the case and to post the same in the Chambers of the Judge for counselling.

8. These circumstances, according to the petitioner, reflect the partisan attitude of the Presiding Officer and he suspects that he will not get substantial justice and the adjudication could be one sided, the respondent being a lawyer practicing in the said