A transfer of case proceedings cannot be granted on mere apprehension of bias; such requests must be supported by substantial material and prove a real, reasonable, rather than illusory, apprehension that prevents a fair trial.

Order

(1) The petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dismissing the petitioner’s petition filed under Section 21[1] of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 24 of CPC, for transfer of OP.No.1579/2023, pending on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, to any other Family Court at Chennai.

(2) For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as petitioner and respondent.

(3) The facts leading to the above Civil Revision Petition can be summarised as follows:

(4) The petitioner’s marriage was solemnised with the respondent on

29.08.2016, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Because of matrimonial discord, the respondent filed OP.No.1579/2023 before the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, for divorce. The petitioner states that she faced hurdles before the Family Court, which failed to even number her interim maintenance petition and the statement of assets and liabilities, filed by her as early as in September, 2024. The petitioner further states that the failure of the learned Judge in failing to number her maintenance application, passing orders in her counsel’s absence and refusing to acknowledge the petition filed by her counsel under Section 13 along with Vakalat, created apprehension in her mind that the trial before the learned Judge would not be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The petitioner, under the circumstances, filed the Transfer OP in OP.No.4645/2025, before the Principal Family Court, at Chennai, for transfer of the OP from the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, to any other Family Court, at Chennai. The learned District Judge, dismissed the Transfer OP and therefore, aggrieved by such dismissal, the petitioner filed the above CRP for the aforesaid relief.

(5) The respondent/husband filed a detailed counter denying the petitioner’s allegations, apart from stating that the allegations levelled by the petitioner were clearly an afterthought and in retaliation to the judicial orders that were passed by the Court in strict compliance with the procedural laws and in the interest of justice. According to the respondent, the orders were passed by the Court only because of the petitioner’s repeated failure to adhere to the timelines fixed by the Court. The respondent contends that the apprehension and the allegation of bias of the petitioner were not genuine, but were speculative, frivolous and malicious. The respondent contends that no material was placed before the Court to prove the bona fide and reasonable apprehension of bias of the petitioner. On the factual allegation that the application of the petitioner for maintenance was kept pending since 2024, the respondent contends that in the absence of any record to show that the petition was unreasonably kept pending, the said allegation deserved to be rejected. The respondent, referring to the chronological events of the case, contends that the allegation of bias is unfounded and untenable. The respondent therefore contends that the petition is devoid of merits and is resorted to, to stall the main divorce proceedings.

(6) Both the learned counsels reiterated the contentions raised by them in the affidavit and in the counter affidavit.

(7) Both the learned counsels relied on a few judgments in support of their case.

(8) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in AIR 2003 Kar 39 : 2002 SCC OnLine Kar 265 [M.V.Ganesh Prasad Vs. M.L.Vasudevamurthy and Others] and the order of this Court dated 23.08.2021 made in Tr.C