The Delhi High Court has dismissed a transfer petition filed by Sarina seeking the transfer of Case No. GP 88/2019 (Koshlinder Sharma v. Sarina) from the Family Court, South-West Dwarka, citing allegations of bias and procedural irregularities against the presiding judge.

The Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma strongly condemned the petition, calling the allegations "simply scandalous" and an attempt to undermine the authority of the Court.

The Bench observed that the petitioner had the right to challenge any adverse order through proper judicial channels, rather than making such accusations to seek a transfer. "There is no substance in this petition, and therefore, it is dismissed with a cost of ₹5,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks," the Court directed.

"Learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking transfer on the ground that the temporary visitation right was granted by the learned Family Judge, however, when the father/respondent met the child, he sexually abused the child, and when this fact was brought to the knowledge of the learned Family Court, he orally refused to pass any order," the Court noted.

Advocates Hemant Singh and Urvashi Jain appeared for the Petitioner.

Family Court's Order

On November 11, 2024, a Delhi Court had dismissed an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking the transfer of a child custody case from the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, Family Court Judge, South-West, Dwarka, Delhi, to another court. The court found no merit in the allegations raised by the applicant, observing that the plea lacked substance and legal justification.

Background of the Case

The Application was moved in a custody dispute (GP No.88/2019, titled "Koshlinder Sharma vs. Sarina") pending under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardianship & Wards Act. The Family Court had granted visitation rights to the father (non-applicant) twice a month in the court’s Children’s Room and via video calls.

The Applicant alleged that the minor child had been sexually assaulted by the non-applicant during court-supervised visitation, leading to the registration of FIR No. 540/2022 at PS Dwarka South under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. However, the non-applicant was later acquitted in the case.

The Applicant further claimed that during visitation sessions, the non-applicant had misbehaved with the child, throwing objects at him, which caused irritation and distress to the child. Additionally, she argued that the Family Court Judge appeared biased by allegedly guiding the non-applicant to file an application under Section 12 of the Guardianship & Wards Act for interim custody following his acquittal.

She also expressed grievance over the Family Court’s delay in deciding her application dated October 4, 2023, seeking a report from Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Hari Nagar, Delhi, regarding a complaint filed against her by the non-applicant for alleged neglect of the child’s well-being.

Family Court’s Observations and Decision

After hearing both parties, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing that mere dissatisfaction with judicial orders does not constitute a valid ground for transfer. Key observations made by the court included:

1. Jurisdictional Clarity: Under Section 24 of CPC, the power to transfer cases lies with the District Court. Since the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a District Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984, it is competent to handle such matters.

2. Judicial Discretion in Family Courts: The Family Court is empowered to evolve its own procedure under Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act to ensure a fair hearing and just resolution. The Family Court Judge is well-placed to ensure justice in child custody proceedings, which are not strictly adversarial in nature.

3. No Proof of Bias or Prejudice: The court held that even if the Family Court Judge had advised the non-applicant to file an application for interim custody, it did not indicate bias or unfairness. Judges often guide litigants in family matters, which is not unusual or improper.

4. Pending Application Not a Valid Ground for Transfer: The court found no malafide intent in the delay in deciding the October 4, 2023, application, ruling that such procedural delays do not warrant a case transfer.

5. No Challenge to Prior Judicial Orders: The applicant never challenged the court's orders regarding visitation rights or the acquittal of the non-applicant in the POCSO case. The transfer plea appeared to be an attempt to undermine the judicial process.

6. No Prejudice from Oral Directions: The applicant alleged that the Family Court Judge gave oral directions for meetings to be held in the courtroom. The court ruled that such directions are within the Family Court’s powers and do not indicate bias or unfair treatment.

Cause Title: Sarina v. Koshlinder Sharma [TR.P.(C.) 12/2025, CM APPLs. 4769-70/2025]

Click here to read/download the Order