The petitioner sought the transfer on the ground that the father, who had been granted temporary visitation rights, allegedly sexually abused the child during visitation.
The Delhi High Court has rejected a transfer petition filed an ₹5,000 fine on woman, requesting the relocation of Case No. GP 88/2019 (Koshlinder Sharma v. Sarina) from the Family Court, South-West Dwarka. She had alleged bias and procedural irregularities against the presiding judge.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, presiding as a single judge, strongly criticized the petition, describing the allegations as “simply scandalous” and an attempt to undermine the Court’s authority.
The Bench emphasized that the petitioner had the right to challenge any unfavorable order through appropriate judicial channels rather than resorting to such accusations to justify a transfer request. “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.
Family Court’s Ruling
On November 11, 2024, a Delhi court rejected an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), requesting 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 concluded that the allegations made by the applicant were unfounded, noting that the plea lacked both merit and legal justification.
Case Background
The application was filed in an ongoing custody dispute (GP No. 88/2019, Koshlinder Sharma vs. Sarina) under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardianship & Wards Act. The Family Court had granted the father (non-applicant) visitation rights twice a month in the court’s Children’s Room, along with video call access.
The applicant alleged that the minor child was sexually assaulted by the non-applicant during a 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 of the charges.
Additionally, the applicant claimed that during visitation sessions, the non-applicant misbehaved with the child, throwing objects at him, which caused distress and irritation. She further alleged that the Family Court Judge displayed bias by purportedly advising the non-applicant to file an application under Section 12 of the Guardianship & Wards Act for interim custody after his acquittal.
She also raised concerns over the Family Court’s delay in ruling on her application dated October 4, 2023, which sought a report from Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Hari Nagar, Delhi. The application was related to a complaint filed against her by the non-applicant, alleging neglect of the child’s well-being.
Family Court’s Observations and Ruling
After hearing both parties, the court rejected the application, stating that mere dissatisfaction with judicial orders does not justify a case transfer. The court made the following key observations:
- Jurisdictional Clarity: Under Section 24 of the CPC, the authority to transfer cases rests with the District Court. Since the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a District Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984, it is fully competent to adjudicate such matters.
- Judicial Discretion in Family Courts: Under Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court has the authority to adopt its own procedures to ensure a fair hearing and just resolution. The presiding judge is well-positioned to oversee child custody proceedings, which are not strictly adversarial in nature.
- No Evidence of Bias or Prejudice: The court stated that even if the Family Court Judge had advised the non-applicant to file an application for interim custody, it did not imply bias or unfairness. Providing guidance to litigants in family disputes is a common judicial practice and is neither improper nor indicative of partiality.
- Delay in Application Decision Not a Valid Ground for Transfer: The court found no wrongful intent behind the delay in ruling on the October 4, 2023, application, emphasizing that procedural delays alone do not justify transferring a case.
- No Challenge to Previous Judicial Orders: The applicant had never contested the court’s decisions on visitation rights or the non-applicant’s acquittal in the POCSO case. The transfer request appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the judicial process.
- Oral Directions Did Not Cause Prejudice: The applicant claimed that the Family Court Judge issued oral directions for visitation meetings to be held in the courtroom. The court clarified that such instructions fall within the judge’s authority and do not reflect bias or unfair treatment.