Vague allegations of insult by the presiding officer without specific details are not sufficient to warrant a transfer. The power of the presiding officer to put questions to witnesses is recognized under Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 05.07.2022 made in Tr.O.P.No.1509 of 2022 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai.)

1. This Revision is filed challenging the order passed in

Tr.O.P.No.1509 of 2022, on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated

05.07.2022, transferring O.P.No.2257 of 2017, pending on the file of 3rd

Additional Family Court, Chennai.

2. The revision petitioner/husband filed a petition for divorce on

the ground of cruelty and desertion and intermittent mental disorder under

Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Originally, the

divorce petition in O.P.No.2257 of 2017 was pending on the file of 7th

Additional Family Court, Chennai. The respondent/wife filed Tr.O.P.No.47 of

2019, on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai for transfer of the case

from the file of 7th Additional Family Court, Chennai, on the ground of

allegations of bias against Presiding Officer and also allegation of insult by

Presiding Officer of 7th Additional Family Court, Chennai. Thereafter, on

request made by the 7th Additional Family Court in O.P.No.2257 of 2017 was

withdrawn from the file of 7th Additional Family Court and transferred to 3rd

Additional Family Court, Chennai.

3. Thereafter, the respondent/wife filed Tr.O.P.No.1509 of 2022

on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai, seeking transfer of O.P.No.2257

of 2017 again from the file of 3rd Additional Family Court to any other Family

Court. The respondent/wife sought for transfer on the ground, she had

suffered a lot in hearing of the matter, as the learned 3rd Additional Family

Court Judge, insulted the respondent/wife and supported the petitioner and his

lawyer during proceeding. It was also submitted that the evidence was already

closed and when the matter was posted for arguments on 08.04.2022, she filed

an application for reopening of the case and recall of witness and the same was

returned by the learned Judge by way of non speaking order.

4. The learned Principal Family Court Judge, while considering

the application filed by the respondent alleging that the learned Judge insulted

her at the time of hearing, on perusal of records, found that the learned 3rd

Additional Family Court Judge had given sufficient opportunity to the

respondent and passed orders. However, the learned Judge observed that in

view of the allegation that Presiding Officer insulted the respondent, in the

interest of justice, the transfer application needs to be allowed. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner/husband has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the

respondent in her transfer application alleged that she was insulted by the

Presiding Officer, she failed to substantiate the same by any acceptable

evidence. The learned counsel also submitted that earlier the respondent sought

for transfer from the file of 7th Additional Family Court, Chennai on similar

allegation and at the request of the Presiding Officer himself the matter was

transferred to 3rd Additional Family Court. It was submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is in the habit of making

unsubstantiated allegations against the Presiding Officer and dragging on the

matter. Therefore, he sought for allowing of revision by setting aside the

transfer order passed by the Principal Family Court Judge, Chennai.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent by drawing

the attention of this Court, to the evidence of RW.4 recorded on 29.06.2022

submitted that the learned Judge himself put certain questions to the

respondent's witness RW.4 and the said action of learned Judge proves that he

was biased.

7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and also typed set of papers

filed by the petitioner and respondent.

8. Though the respondent in her affidavit alleged that the petition

filed by h