A transfer of case requires strong evidence of bias; mere allegations are insufficient.

ORDER

The petitioner / wife has chosen to file this petition seeking transfer of O.P.No.1162 of 2022 on the file of the V Additional Family Court at Chennai to any other Family Court at Chennai.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it has been stated that the petitioner / wife filed O.P.No.1162 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights, in which an interim application for maintenance in I.A.SR.12981 of 2024 was filed in February, 2024 and the petitioner/wife promptly represented the same during September, 2024. Due to administrative inefficiency, there was misplacement at the Court Registry and the said application was subsequently traced out and posted on 10.07.2025. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed proof affidavit and proceeded with the trial in the main original petition, without considering the application filed therein by the Court below. Therefore, the petitioner/wife preferred Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.3610 of 2025, seeking a direction to dispose of the aforesaid application and this Court, vide order dated 08.08.2025, issued directions to dispose of the application.

3. According to the petitioner, the attitude of the learned Family Court Judge has shifted drastically. Upon hearing the respondent submissions, the learned Judge has put forth a statement that the petitioner ought to move to the Hill Station, Kodaikanal where the respondent / husband resides to receive some form of maintenance. The petitioner, responding the same, had highlighted her inability and shown medical reports, however the learned Judge has insensitively made some sarcastic remarks on three occasions on her and after hearing the nature of the profession of the father also, made some remarks and such remarks not only belittled her plea, but also reflected gender biased approach.

4. The respondent / husband has filed a counter wherein it has been stated that transfer CMP has been filed solely with an intention to delay the proceedings and the allegations of bias against the judicial officer concerned is wholly unfounded, frivolous and contemptuous in nature. On 19.08.2025, the Judicial Officer only advised the petitioner, in her own interest, to make an attempt to reside at Kodaikanal along with daughter and husband, considering the welfare and education of the child and the learned Judicial Officer never compelled or coerced the petitioner, but only made a conciliatory suggestion, which is well within the scope of matrimonial jurisdiction.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the copy of the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.3610 of 2025 has been furnished before the Court below with the hope that the application will be taken up, but at that juncture, the character of the learned Family Court Judge has shifted drastically for the reasons best known to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court Judge had made sensitive remarks on three occasions against the petitioner and such remarks not only caused embarrassment to the petitioner, but shaken her confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would submit that the learned Family Court Judge not only advised the petitioner on her own interest to make an attempt to reside at Kodaikanal along with daughter and husband, considering the welfare and higher secondary education of the child and the learned Judge never compelled or coerced the petitioner / wife, but only made a conciliatory suggestion, which is well within the scope of matrimonial jurisdiction.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perus