:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2005 Vivek Ganesh Joshi .. Petitioner Vs. Rohini Vivek Joshi .. Respondent Petitioner - party in person present. Mr. N.V. Gangal for Respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : October 17, 2005. Date : October 17, 2005. Date : October 17, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the petitioner - party in person. He prays for transfer of Petition No.A-519 of 2004 presently pending before the Family Court No.1 at Bandra to any other Family Court at Bandra. As per the petitioner the learned Judge presiding over Court No.1 is biased against him, she has been raising her voice as and when the applicant’s case is being heard by her and she accuses that the petitioner is a lier. The petitioner’s advocate has already filed a withdrawal application on 23/8/2005 and thus he is left undefended because of the remarks made by the learned Judge. As per the petitioner no other advocate in the Family Court is ready to accept his brief before Court No.1. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner’s advocate had submitted a withdrawal :2: pursis on 23/8/2005, on 13/9/2005 when the petitioner had moved a transfer application, the learned Judge had called the said advocate to appear for the petitioner and continue with the case. 2. The respondent-wife has filed an affidavit in reply and stated that this application filed by the husband is false and frivolous. As per her the husband has misled the Family Court and he keeps on filing applications after applications before the said court so as to frustrate and delay the hearing of divorce petition no.519 of 2004. She alleges that almost on every hearing date husband files some or the other applications and this has resulted in delay in deciding Petition No.A-519 of 2004. Two witnesses have already been examined before the Family Court and despite giving several opportunities, the husband failed to cross examine these witnesses. The case has reached its final stage and a transfer application has been filed only to delay the final decision in the pending petition. The wife further goes to state on oath that the petitioner-husband goes on making vocal complaints against the learned Judge and he is in habit of making derogative remarks against the mental :3: attitude of the learned Judge amongst lawyers and the staff of the court. The petitioner-husband goes on making utterances that he would teach a lesson to the learned Judge by filing a complaint before the High Court. 3. The affidavit in reply filed by the wife thus makes out a case that the learned Judge of the Family Court is justified in raising her voice. The grounds raised for transfer of Petition No.A-519 of 2004 are the imaginations of the petitioner himself and, prima facie, it appears that he has to blame his conduct. He seems to be interested in browbeating presiding officers as and when they show their determination not to adjourn the case. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be allowed to assist the litigants so as to browbeat the Presiding Officers of subordinate courts. 4. The application is hereby rejected summarily. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)