Court Emphasizes Insufficient Grounds for Transfer; Mere Apprehension of Bias Not Enough
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided by Justice Venuthurmalli Gopala Krishna Rao, dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of a family court case from Tirupati to another jurisdiction. The petitioner, Varun Jeeri, had sought the transfer of F.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2025, citing personal inconvenience and an apprehension of bias by the presiding officer at the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
Varun Jeeri, the petitioner, argued that he faced severe mental cruelty from his wife, the respondent, Siddavatam Pujitha, during their time in the USA. He filed for divorce in 2025 and claimed that the presiding judge in Tirupati was biased, allegedly frustrating a direct order from the High Court and imposing an impossible burden on him by requiring personal appearance despite his residence in the USA.
The respondent, Siddavatam Pujitha, denied these allegations, accusing the petitioner of desertion and cruelty. She argued that the petitioner did not participate in court proceedings, which led to delays, and she filed another petition seeking maintenance.
The Court examined the grounds for transfer under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and noted that mere apprehension of bias or inconvenience does not justify a transfer. It emphasized the need for substantial evidence of unfair conduct by the presiding officer, which was lacking in this case. The Court highlighted that personal inconvenience alone is insufficient for transfer, as both parties' convenience must be considered.
The Court referenced various legal precedents, including those from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, but found them inapplicable to this case. The ruling underscored that apprehensions must be based on concrete evidence, not mere speculation.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial grounds warranting a transfer. The decision reinforces the legal principle that apprehensions of bias must be substantiated with evidence, ensuring judicial processes are not disrupted without just cause.
Bottom line:-
Mere apprehension of bias or unfair trial is not a valid ground for seeking transfer of a case from one court to another, unless supported by substantial evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 9
