Can’t Find Bias On Judge Merely Because Relative Of Party Is Head Constable Or Court Staff: Supreme Court Allows Wife’s Appeal;Sets Aside Transfer Order
The wife approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment by which, on the request of the husband, the proceedings initiated on her complaint were transferred to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal filed by a wife and set aside an order transferring the proceedings initiated on her complaint from Sangareddy to Hyderabad. The Apex Court held that it cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of the Court and/or another relative is working in the District Court itself.
The appellant wife approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment by which, on the request of the husband, the proceedings initiated on her complaint, was transferred to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “Primarily, it cannot be said that merely because the relative of the wife is a Head Constable and another is working in the District Court, there would be a bias against the husband, especially when the adjudication is carried out by the Judge. We cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of the Court and/or another relative is working in the District Court itself. Further, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-wife, the lady who was working as Junior Assistant has already been transferred.”
Advocate Kumar Shashank represented the Appellant while Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant and the second respondent got married in the year 2007 and they proceeded to the United States of America where the second respondent was working. They returned to India later and as per the appellant, due to persistent mental cruelty and harassment, a crime was registered at the Raidurgam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. In the year 2010, the second respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court. In 2011, a settlement was reached and a compromise was entered into. As per the appellant, the husband surreptitiously continued the proceedings of divorce, and an order of divorce was obtained, which was never brought to the notice of the wife.
The wife, it was asserted, was made aware of the divorce granted by the Family Court only through a legal notice issued against the appellant by her brother-in-law. The appellant, on coming to know of the ex parte order of the Family Court, granting divorce, approached the High Court with an appeal wherein the delay of 2709 days in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter was pending.
Arguments
It was the case of the appellant that the ex parte order of transfer was unmindful of the travails of a woman left alone with two children to prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown.
It was the husband’s case that the appellant’s brother-in-law is a Head Constable in the Sangareddy Police Station, and her sister-in-law is a Senior Assistant in the District Court, along with her brothers, who are politicians. As per the respondent, they were influencing the police and the Court staff, thereby perpetrating harassment on the husband (second respondent).
Reasoning
The Bench was concerned with the transfer of the case from Sangareddy to Hyderabad. “We do not think that the High Court appreciated the issue properly, especially since the learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of hearing the wife. We would not dwell upon whether the wife had received the notice issued or not, but we notice that in the overall circumstances and the reasons stated for raising the ground of bias the transfer was not justified”, it stated.
As per the Bench, the second respondent, who is an accused in the proceedings, could seek for appearance through a counsel or by video conferencing, during the pendency of the case and if at all his presence is required by the Magistrate, he could file an application for providing sufficient protection to appear before the Court which shall be favourably considered by the Magistrate.
“We are of the opinion that the order of the High Court cannot at all be sustained, especially on the grounds raised of bias, which we find to be inconsequential”, the Bench held. The Bench also ordered that if a transfer has been effected to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, the case registered on transfer of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy shall immediately be transferred back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, if the matter is still pending. “...if it has been closed on any grounds, including the default of the complainant to appear before the transferred-Court, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall restore the proceedings and transfer it back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, without any fail”, it added.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered the transfer to be carried out within a month.
Cause Title: A v. The State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 30)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Kumar Shashank, AOR Nivesh Kumar, Advocates Krishna Swami Yadav, Nitish Rai, Rakesh Kumar
Respondent: Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw, AOR Devina Sehgal, Advocates Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Yatharth Kansal, AOR Rakeesh N.P., Advocate Dr. Shine P. Sasidhar, Advocate Mr. Sumanth G.