SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shehnaz Mudbhatkal
Versus
Arvind Ramakrishna and another
(Before : M. M. Punchhi, C.J.I., K. T. Thomas And D. P. Wadhwa, JJ.)
Petns. for Spl. Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5968 of 1998,
Decided on : 15-05-1998.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 25—Transfer application—Matter pending before Family Court—Certain unfounded allegations made against Presiding Judge apprehending justice by petitioner—Family matters being sensitive in character Judges of Family Courts have to pay greater participatory role—Objective of Act can only be achieved if rapport between Judges and parties is established—Supreme Court left option to transfer case with concerned Judge of Family Court.
Counsel for the Parties:
Petitioner in person; Ms. Smitha Inna, Syed Naqvi, Advocates, for M/s. Karanjawala and Co., Advocate, for Respondents.
order
1. This is a transfer application. The petitioner herein is the wife and the first respondent, the husband. The cause between the parties initially was before the 4th Family Court, Bandra, but at a point of time was transferred to the 7th Family Court. Proceedings before the 7th Family Court remained stagnant because there was no Presiding Judge. The position continues to be the same. The Principal Family Court then transferred the case to the 4th Family Court. The petitioner has certain grievances against the functioning of the 4th Family Court when the matter was before it. Certain unfounded allegations have been made against the Presiding Judge of that Court. The apprehensions of the petitioner that she will not get justice there, are without any basis. All the same, since the family matters are sensitive in character and the Judges of the Family Courts have to play a greater participatory role, that objective can only be achieved if a rapport is established by the Judges of such Court with the parties concerned. In these circumstances, we leave it to the Judge concerned whether he would prefer to keep hearing this matter or recommended a transfer to another Family Court within the same jurisdiction. We leave that option to the learned Judge. Having remarked thus, we dispose of this special leave petition.
AIR 1999 SC 1524 : (1998) 5 SCC 596 : JT 1998 (6) SC 638