Point of Law : One of principles of administration of justice is that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done.

ORDER :

“Majesty of law continues to hold its head high notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks made by persons who feel that the law courts will absorb anything and everything, including attacks on their honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be borne in mind that such divinity and magnanimity is not its weakness but its strength. It generally ignores irresponsible statements which are anything but legitimate criticism. It is to be noted that what is permissible is legitimate criticism and not illegitimate insinuation. No court can brook with equanimity something which may have tendency to interfere with the administration of justice”…………. observed the Honourable Supreme Court in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, [(2007) 14 SCC 1].

2. The petitioner seeks the transfer of O.P.No.619/2017 (Annexure-1) from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, on the allegation of bias against the learned Judge. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent has filed Annexure-1 petition to declare his marriage with the petitioner null and void.

3. The concise case of the petitioner in the transfer petition is as follows :

(i) The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She is a lawyer by profession.

(ii) The respondent has filed Annexure-1 petition to pass a decree of divorce. The petition is fabricated and false and is not maintainable in law.

(iii) The respondent had also filed a fabricated original petition before this Court as O.P. (FC) No.66/2021 for the expeditious disposal of the Annexure-1 petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has colluded with the respondent and averred falsehood in the said original petition to mislead this Court.

(iv) The respondent and his lawyer have committed the offences under Sections 120(B), 191, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1808 and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(v) Immediately on receipt of the notice in Annexure-1 petition, the petitioner filed M.C.No. 86/2017 before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, against the respondent, invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent’s counsel had admitted that the petitioner’s ornaments are with the respondent, which is a judicial admission. However, the respondent filed a fabricated counter affidavit in the said case. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent and his lawyer under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr. PC’).

(vi) The respondent had filed I.A.No.381/2018 (Annexure-13) to deliver interrogatories on the petitioner. The petitioner filed Annexure A15 affidavit to Annexure-13 application. A bare reading of Annexure-15 affidavit would prove that the respondent has filed fabricated petitions.

(vii) On 23.10.2021, the learned Judge considered I.A.Nos.3709/2017, 2664/2019 & 1741/2019 and has passed Annexure-22 common order on the same day. The learned Judge has failed to comply with the Supreme Court rulings on perjury and has allowed the respondent to poison the stream of justice. The above act of the learned Judge is an indication of extraneous consideration, and tantamounts to gross judicial impropriety, indiscipline, lack of integrity, gross misconduct and an act unbecoming of a judicial officer.

(viii) The petitioner had filed I.A.No.8/2021 (Annexure-24) to refer the respondent to a medical board. The respondent filed Annexure-25 objection to the application. The learned Judge dismissed the application by Annexure-27 order. The learned Judge has passed a string of illegal orders on extraneous consideration, which amounts to criminal misconduct and dereliction of duty.

(ix) The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Registrar of this Court to remove the learned Judge from office, but the complaint was closed.

(x) Again, the petitioner filed an application before the Family Court for perjury, which was dismissed by