Point of Law :
Bias is the second limb of natural justice. Prima facie no one should be a judge in what is to be regarded as ‘sua causa’ whether or not he is named as a party. The decision-maker should have no interest by way of gain or detriment in the outcome of a proceeding. Interest may take many forms. It may be direct, it may be indirect, it may arise from a personal relationship or from a relationship with the subject-matter, from a close relationship or from a tenuous one.”

ORDER :

1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the petitioner/wife, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P. No. 367 of 2018 from the file of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and transfer the same to the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, Sri. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/husband and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would contend that the marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband was performed on 05.02.2003 at Secunderabad. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a male child. Subsequently, disputes arose between the couple and the petitioner/wife is residing separately from the respondent/ husband for the last five and half years. The respondent/husband is a homosexual and he had sexually abused the minor child in the past. The petitioner/wife had filed a complaint against the respondent/husband regarding the same. Subsequently, the respondent/husband filed the subject F.C.O.P. No. 367 of 2018 before the Court below under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read with Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking custody of the minor child. In the said F.C.O.P. the respondent/husband had earlier filed I.A. No. 680 of 2018 seeking custody of the minor child and the Court concerned granted custody of minor child from 15.06.2018 to 30.06.2018 in favour of the respondent/husband. The petitioner/wife challenged the said order by filing C.R.P. No. 4055 of 2018 before this Court, wherein, this Court had set aside the said order and restored the custody of the minor child to the petitioner/wife. The order passed by this Court in CRP No. 4055 of 2018 was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.A. (C) No. 7536/2019, dated 29.03.2019. Thereafter, the respondent/husband filed another application in I.A. No. 470 of 2019 before the Court below seeking custody of the minor child. In that application, the Court below summoned the child and interrogated him in a frightening manner. The minor child had not made the statements which were recorded by the Court below in the order, dated 06.06.2019, passed in the said interlocutory application. When the petitioner/wife asked the minor child as to what he stated before the learned Judge of the Court below, the minor child denied the statements recorded by the Presiding Officer of the Court below. The Court below, though recorded a finding that the minor child had expressed his disinterest to go to his father, allowed the said I.A. No. 470 of 2019 and thereby, exhibited biased nature in favour of the respondent/husband. The Court below also overlooked the video footage of the examination of the minor child by a woman police officer and ignored to look into the report lodged by the petitioner/wife under POCSO Act. These aspects show the biased attitude of the Court below. If the subject FCOP continues to be on the file of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, it may cause great prejudice to the petitioner/wife in view of the biased attitude of the Presiding Officer of the said Court and ultimately prayed to withdraw F.C.O.P. No. 367 of 2018 from the file of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and transfer the same to the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

4. The respondent/husband filed a detailed counter and contended that this transfer petition is filed without valid grounds and reasons and is devoid of merit. The petitioner/wife is trying to cast aspersions on the learned Presiding Officer of the Court below. A complaint was lodged by the petitioner/wife under POCSO Act against the respondent/husband with false and ulterior motives. The said complaint was closed due to l