JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This transfer application, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been instituted by Anuj Kumar, seeking transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 589 of 2017, Kshama vs. Anuj Kumar, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar to any nearby district.

2. Heard Mr. Prakhar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

3. A perusal of the grounds of transfer does not indicate that it is, in fact, a case for an inter-district transfer on grounds such as convenience of parties or other germane grounds to move the case out of the district. The transfer has been sought primarily on the ground that doubt the impartiality of the Judge. The reason, the applicant does not expect the Judge to decide fairly, is an inference drawn by the applicant from certain events in the course of proceedings. It is asserted in the affidavit that the applicant, who is a respondent to the petition for grant of a decree of nullity, made an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC asking the Court to reject the petition. The ground urged in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that the petition for a decree of nullity is ex facie barred by the statutory limitation inasmuch as a period of one year has elapsed between the date of marriage and presentation of the petition. The said application was rejected by the Trial Judge vide order dated 17.03.2021, which the applicant says the Judge has done wrongly and illegally.

4. It is asserted that the applicant had cited authorities before the court in support of his case for a rejection of the petition, but the Trial Judge did not refer to any of those authorities while writing the order refusing to reject the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is then asserted that the applicant moved an application on 18.03.2021 before the Trial Court to allow him fifteen days' time to file an appeal to this Court, but the learned Judge rejected that application, fixing 19.03.2021 for hearing. It is also asserted that on 19.03.2021, the learned Counsel for the applicant moved another application before the Trial Judge praying that he may be allowed time to file an appeal from the order dated 19.03.2021 to this Court, but the Trial Judge appeared adamant to decide the case. It is inferred from these facts that the Court appeared to be “interested” to decide the case.

5. It is averred in paragraph 11 that from the attitude of the learned Trial Judge, it is apparent that he was “very much interesting in this case for deciding the matter as early as possible”. It is also averred in paragraph 12 that the attitude of the Trial Court clearly shows that the Court was leaning in favour of the opposite party and the applicant had no hope of justice from the learned Judge.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, who has denied these allegations. It is asserted in paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit that the applicant is lingering on the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, indulging in dilatory tactics. The opposite party, therefore, moved a petition under Article 227 being Matter under Article 227 No. 1461 of 2020 before this Court seeking a direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the petition expeditiously and within a specified time. This Court disposed of the said petition by an order dated 20.02.2020, reasoning and directing in the following terms:

“The courts cannot be held to ransom by the conduct of the parties or the strikes of the counsels. The process of law has to run its course unimpeded by any such obstructions. The courts have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law when the parties or counsels are not cooperating with the trial proceedings. The court proceedings cannot come to a stand still under any circumstance.

In view of the preceding di