Case: NEETU YADAV Vs. SACHIN YADAV

3. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 21.02.2008 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Two children, a girl and a boy, were born in the wedlock. While the girl is now aged about 11 years, the boy is aged about 8 years.4. Admittedly, the respondent-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty in H.M.A case No.3200 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

Court's reasoning:
7. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is gainfully employed. The claim of the petitioner that she is now staying with her parents is not disputed by the respondent. That both the children are staying with the petitioner is also not disputed. The elder child is a girl aged about 11 years and whenever the case is fixed for hearing, the petitioner has to travel about 800 kms.9. The only reason why the respondent has chosen to file the Divorce Petition at Dwarka is that he is now posted in New Delhi and that the couple last resided together at New Delhi.10. Keeping the above mentioned admitted facts in mind, if we look at the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is seen that the request for transfer is contested mainly on the ground that the petitioners mother is a retired employee of the District Court and that the petitioners elder brother is a practicing advocate and the younger brother is working in the I.T. department of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and that they wield enormous influence.While one of those print outs has photographs taken on the occasion of a cricket tournament held under the aegis of Indore Bar Association and another print out relates to the greetings extended to the Ex-President of Indore Bar Association, the print outs of all other Facebook pages contain nothing other than the photographs of the petitioners brother with comments revolving around some joyous occasions.12. I do not know how the pictures taken on the occasion of a cricket tournament conducted by a Bar Association and witnessed by a few judicial officers can be an indication of the influence exerted by the petitioners family on the entire district judiciary, merely because the judicial officers and Advocates have stood shoulder to shoulder on that occasion. It was not a private event but an event open to all lawyers of the District Bar. The fact that the petitioners brother who is a lawyer, has a Facebook page and that the same has lot of followers and that it attracts a lot of comments and likes cannot be the basis to conclude that the petitioners brother is very influential with the local judiciary.13. I am not convinced that there is any real likelihood of bias. Out of the seven print outs of the Facebook pages of the petitioners brother, filed by respondent as Annexures R/1, R/2 and R/3 (colly), only one contains the photographs of a few persons who had participated in the cricket competition conducted by Indore Bar Association. On the basis of this, it is not appropriate to come to the conclusion that the respondent will not receive a fair treatment at the hands of the Family Court.