IH COUR OF CHHAmsGARH' BI'LAsP Transferpetjtiomcrmq 04:200'6‘; 5f: I, : -4 . Rajkumar Mmhra S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Mishra Aged about36years Mtshra Glass Haldlban Chmmm . Distnct Korea (CG) PETmONER , ' Ver5us RESPONDENT 8mt Rita Chaubey, W/o Shn Ragkumar Mishra ’ ’ . Aged about 34 years , R/o New Bhath Road . Near Chltrakod Chowk Amblkapur e » v- Dlstnct SurguJa (C G) Appearance: Petitioner nameiyRajkumar Miehra epp’ea‘rs‘ in person. ORAL omen Ls;os.2poar j. :}suNIL KUMAR SINHA J I. Heard on admission . . , The petitioner appearing m person mainly argues for transfer of 2 M J Cs bearing No 21 7/2005 and 405/2005 pending before the _Famlly Court Ambrkapur Distnct Sarguja (C G) It appears that a. the frat M J C Ie 217/2005 rs an original proceeding filed under ‘IISectton 125 of the Code of Cnmmal Procedure for grant of monthly maintenance to the respondent-wrfe and therr child and the second ‘. MJC No 405/2007 is the execution proceeding filed under Section I 125(3) Cr P C regarding recovery of arrears of interrm maintenance granted in favour of the wrfe and child , . The petrtioner raises tWo pornts for tra 'fer of both the cases 'His frst gnevance is that so far as MJC No 405/2007 regardrng execution is concerned the Family Court is not conducting the case in a fair and proper manner, as the said Court granted permissmn to HG T E , ‘ “2 - ' the petitioner's wife regarding appointment of a Iawyer as “amicus curiae“ in the said matter. whereas, the applicatibn of this petitianer for appointment of a lawyer from his- side was dismissed by the $aid Court on 21/6/2006. He refers to the order sheets dated 27.1 0.2005 eiianeoue Judicial Vand 21/06/2006 passed in the aforesaid Misc Case. His 5econd grievance is that so far as the original Case No.217/2005 is concerned, the Family Court has utterly failed to the parties and draw an effective proceeding of conciliation betWeen only on the statement made by the respondent-Wife on 21/6/2006 that on that date. she was residing separately from the petitioner, the proceedings of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not terminated and they were allowed to continue. He refers to the order sheet dated 21/6/2006 recorded by the Family Court in MJC No.21 7/2005. The petitioner submits that on these grounds. he is apprehending that. he wilt not get fair decision from that Court and it is expedient in the interest of justice that both the proceedings, pending before the Family Court, Ambikapur, should be transferred to some other Court. During the course of'warg'um‘ents', the petitioner also stated against the arrears of orally that he had parqabout Rs.22,000/- interim maintenance to the respondent, but even after that, without ount of balance and further without determining the correct am looking into the possibility of conciliation, the Family Court has passed an order of warrant of arrest against him and this is also one of the grounds for seeking transfer of the cases from the said Court. l have heard the petitioner at length and have also perused the copies of various order sheets tiled by him aiongwith theTransfer Petition. The law with regard to transfer of cases is well settled. The Apex Court held in the matter of Gurucharan Dass Cha'dha -Vs- State of Raiasthan. AIR 1966 $.C. 1418 that a case is'transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. The Apex Court said that a petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be LP. 1cm No 04/2006 T.P. (CL! No.04I2006 ,_ .3; Inferred that he entertains an apprehenswn and that 1f is reasonable m the cwcumsmnces alleged The Apex Court further heid that It Is one of the pnnmples of the administtauon of Justice that justwe ' should not only be done but rt should be seen to be done However a mere allegation that there rs apprehensron that gustrce W!!! not he done m a grven case does not Suft‘ce The Court has further to see whether the apprehensron rs reasonable or not The Apex Court also sard that to judge of the reasonableness of the aoprehenswn the state of the mind of the person who entertarns the apprehensron rs no doubt relevant but that is not all, The apprehension muet not only be entertainedrbut muet appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension. lt was further held by the Apex Court in the matter of Mrs Maneka Saniaz Gandhi and another -Vs- Miss Rani Jethmalan AIR 1979 S.C, 468 that assurance of 'a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievanoe"?'$omething more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is t exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case; Th Apex Court. in the facts and circumstances of the case, said that the grounds for the transfer have to be tested on this touch—stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any Court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. lt further said that even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances lf we apply the above pnnctples in the present case It does not appear to this Court that the grounds pressed hv the petitioner for the purpose of transfer of the cases are the sufforent grounds on which the petitioner may entertain apprehension that he writ not get fair decision or justice from that Court . i. o e that such arders ave often passed in the ch ‘he court may lead 1 or white deanng with it does not necessaruy mean that on those grounds, the aggrieved party may entertain an he witi not get fair justice from the said Court. Needbss to say cases and there may aiso be the cases in whi to some wrong notion. whiie passing any orde the cases of the parties, but in aii such cases, In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances, apprehension that nds pressed by petitioner, who r is made out. admission and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. I since the matter reiates to the Family Court, particularly d there is also a child and the referred to above and on the grou appears in person, no case of transfe This petition is not worth However, iooking to the pecuiiar facts and circumstances of this case, between the husband and wife an petitioner expressed before me that he is ready for conciliation, it is observed that the Family Court would explore every possibility to get the matter conciliated between the parties so that, if possible, the husband and wife may resume and get advantage and the matter is also disposed of on conciliation offered by the said Court.‘ lt is also observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any or order of the Court, he is free to avail appropriate ,._/ _ m 7v ,M/i #s...‘,‘——’ Sdl- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge particular action remedy in accordance with law. shyna ‘ \ "