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 Sarina’s transfer petition, which sought to move Case No. GP 88/2019 (Koshlinder Sharma v. Sarina) from the Family Court in South-West Dwarka. She had alleged bias and procedural errors by the presiding judge.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, sitting alone, vehemently condemned the petition, describing the allegations as “purely scandalous” and an attempt to undermine the Court’s authority.
The Bench emphasized that the petitioner had the option to challenge any unfavorable order through proper judicial channels, rather than resorting to such accusations to support her 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 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which sought the transfer of a child custody case from Sh. Anil Kumar, Family Court Judge, South-West, Dwarka, Delhi, to another court. The court found the applicant’s allegations unsubstantiated and determined that the request lacked merit and legal foundation.
Case Background
The application was filed in the 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, with video call access.
The applicant alleged that during a court-supervised visitation, the non-applicant sexually assaulted the minor child, 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 acquitted of the charges.
Additionally, the applicant claimed that during visitation sessions, the non-applicant misbehaved with the child, including throwing objects at him, causing distress and discomfort. She further alleged bias by the Family Court Judge, claiming he advised the non-applicant to file an application under Section 12 of the Guardianship & Wards Act for interim custody after his acquittal.
The applicant also raised concerns about delays in the Family Court’s decision on her October 4, 2023, application, which sought a report from Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Hari Nagar, Delhi. This 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 arguments from both parties, the court dismissed the application, stating that dissatisfaction with judicial orders does not provide grounds for a transfer. The court made the following key observations:
- Jurisdictional Authority: The power to transfer cases under Section 24 of the CPC lies with the District Court. Since the Family Court operates under the jurisdiction of a District Court per the Family Courts Act, 1984, it is fully authorized to handle such matters.
- Judicial Discretion in Family Courts: Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act allows the Family Court to establish its own procedures to ensure a fair hearing. As child custody cases are not strictly adversarial, the presiding judge is well-equipped to manage them.
- No Evidence of Bias: The court clarified that even if the Family Court Judge had advised the non-applicant to seek interim custody, this did not indicate bias or partiality. Providing procedural guidance in family disputes is a standard judicial practice and does not imply unfairness.
- Procedural Delays Not Grounds for Transfer: The court found no malicious intent behind the delay in ruling on the October 4, 2023, application and emphasized that mere procedural delays are not sufficient grounds for transferring a case.
- No Prior Challenge to Judicial Orders: The applicant had not previously challenged any court decisions regarding visitation rights or the non-applicant’s acquittal in the POCSO case, suggesting the transfer request was an attempt to bypass the legal process.
- Oral Directions Within Judicial Authority: The applicant claimed that the Family Court Judge had issued oral instructions for visitation meetings to be held in the courtroom. The court affirmed that such directions fall within the judge’s authority and do not imply bias or improper conduct.
