IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Tr.P(C).No. 6 of 2008() ----------------------- OP.1232/2006 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- NIZAMUDHEEN @ NIZAMBIN HAJ K.MUHAMMED, PARAVILA VEEDU, PALLICKAL, CHIRAYANKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. LISSY, D/O LABUDA, MUKKANAMKAVU VEEDU, THEKKUMBHATGOM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 2. LIJU, S/O JALALUDHEEN SEEYUDEEN, CHANTHAYIL VEEDU, PALLICKAL P.O., CHIRAYANKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY HIS P/A HOLDER BABY LISY, D/O SUGATHY, CHANTHAYIL VEEDU, PALLICKAL, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O ABDUL KHADER, ASANPACHA VEEDU, KATTUPUTHUSSERY, PALLICKAL, CHIRAYANKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 26/08 IN Tr.P.C. 6/08 DISMISSED 25.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Tr.P.C. NO. 6 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER This transfer petition is filed with a prayer to transfer OP 1232/06, pending before the Family Court, Nedumangadu to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram or to Family Court, Kollam. It is averred that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court is adopting a hostile attitude towards the petitioner and that he has already formed an opinion. It is also averred that on 17.12.07, when the case was called in the chamber of the learned Judge in the afternoon for taking the thumb impression, learned Judge declared in open that the case filed is a false one and directed the defendants to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner. Learned Judge also threatened to dismiss the case, unless the petitioner voluntarily withdrew the case. Hence a transfer is sought for by the petitioner. 2. Learned Family Court Judge had sent her remarks as directed by this court and she has stated that all the allegations levelled against her are incorrect. She has denied that the case was called in the chamber for the purpose of taking out thumb impression. It is her version that the thumb impression is taken in the open court and not in the chamber. She had also categorically denied that she had expressed any opinion about the case or given any direction to the other side to file a Tr.P.C. NO.6 /08 2 criminal case. On 17.12.07, the respondents in the petition submitted that the real dispute relating to the property is not between the spouses and so the question of maintainability is to be considered. She had reiterated that all the allegations in the transfer petition are not true but false. 3. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the report submitted by the District judge and that too of an experienced District Judge. Therefore the transfer under Section 24 of the CPC on the ground of bias cannot be allowed because it affects the rudiment of the system and its discipline. It is important that both parties as well as the court shall keep cool so that there is no collision against each other. It is the system that has to be respected and maintained with high dignity. Therefore, I dismiss the writ petition making it clear that the Family Court Judge shall not by her conduct make any impression that she is biased because of the principle that not only justice should be done but it should be seem to be done. I hope all concerned will keep the dignity and decorum and help for a disposal in the right way. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Tr.P.C. NO.6 /08 3