Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010132992025 2025:GAU-AS:13059 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/84/2025 DHRUBAJYOTI DAS S/O DEBEN DAS R/O HOUSE NO 129 BAPUJI PATH KRISHNA NAGAR BAZAR JAPORIGOG GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781005 VERSUS MANIKA DAS W/O DHRUBAJYOTI DAS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 46 A KARBI NAMGHAR PATH JAPORIGOG GUWAHATI 781005 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR M BORO Advocate for the Respondent : G UDDIN, MR A K AZAD,MS ANNA K P BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 22.09.2025. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), challenging the order dated 06.06.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. Transfer Case No. 26/2025. Page No.# 2/7 3. But during the deliberation of the case it is submitted by Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner that vide its order dated 24.06.2025, the present petition is also considered to be a petition under Section 24 of the CPC and the order of stay was also passed vide the said order dated 24.06.2025. 4. It is submitted by Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to misbehavior of the concerned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the petitioner also filed a complaint before the Registrar General of this Court against Sri P.K. Bora, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati which is still pending and thereafter, the petitioner also filed an affidavit in support of his complaint before the Registrar General. It is further submitted by Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier one transfer petition was filed before this Court seeking transfer of his case from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2 or learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, due to reasonable apprehension of bias and procedural irregularities by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1. However the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the case was within the same District and therefore, as per order of this Court dated 28.05.2025, passed in Transfer Petition No.25/2025, the petitioner again approached with a petition under Section 24 of the CPC before the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. Transfer Case No. 26/2025. However, vide order dated 06.06.2025, the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati had dismissed the application considering it to be non-maintainable holding that the District Judge has no jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC, to transfer the cases, pending before the Family Court. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of both the F.C. (Civil) Case No. 657/2020 and Page No.# 3/7 the F.C. (Crl) Case No. 47/2022, which are currently pending before the same Court i.e. in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 5. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the conduct of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 had compelled the petitioner to file the petitions for transfer and also to lodge a complaint before the Registrar General. Further, he submitted that the conduct of the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, during the proceeding has created reasonable apprehension of biasness and procedural irregularity and denial of a fair trial. He further submitted that on 02.11.2024, the F.C. (Civil) Case No. 657/2020 and the F.C. (Crl) Case No. 47/2022 were fixed for cross-examination. But before cross-examination in the said case, when the present petitioner made a prayer for appointment of Amicus Curiae to assist in the cross-examination, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 not only refused to appoint an Amicus Curiae but also verbally abused the petitioner by making some derogatory and humiliatory remarks. These remarks were unprovoked and irrelevant to the proceeding and such behavior caused significant distress and undermined the petitioner’s confidence in the impartiality of the Court. Further, on 02.11.2024, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 conducted the cross-examination by himself and all the answers were recorded in favour of the respondent No.1, prejudicing the present petitioner, which also violated the Principle of Natural Justice, as it deprived the petitioner from the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the respondent. 6. Subsequent to the said incident, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, for transfer of the cases to any Page No.# 4/7 other Court within the same campus and in that occasion, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 had misbehaved with the petitioner and also threatened to put him in prison for such request made by him. Thereafter, the petitioner had lodged a complaint along with the affidavit before the Registrar General of the High Court on 05.03.2025 and 16.05.2025, informing all about the incident. 7. Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that such conduct of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 and the verbal abuse, threat and irregularity in the proceeding had created reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he may not get proper justice and there may not be fair and impartial trial before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1. He further submitted that in the event of transfer of the cases to other Family Court i.e. the Family Court No. 2 or the Family Court No. 3, will also not cause any prejudice to the respondent as all the Family Courts are within the same campus and there cannot be any reason of causing any prejudice to the respondent as well. But it will cause irreparable loss and harm to the petitioner if he is compelled to continue with the proceeding before the Family Court No. 1, where he faces hostile environment, undermining his right to fair trial. Mr. Ali, accordingly submitted that the prayer may be considered and the cases may be transferred to any other Family Court within the same campus. 8. Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted in this regard that the conduct of the petitioner is not good and this petitions for transfer are being filed only to harass the respondent and to delay the proceeding. He further submitted that as per the Family Courts Act, the Advocates can only appear as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and thus, the Page No.# 5/7 learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 had rightly rejected the prayer for appointment of an Amicus Curiae. He further submitted that if there is any apprehension on the part of the petitioner not to get proper justice, in that event he may approach the appropriate forum of Appellate Authority if he aggrieved with the order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1. Moreover, if there is any transfer of the case, the proceeding will be further delayed, which will cause irreparable loss to the present respondent and it is the only intention of the petitioner to delay the entire proceeding, with a view to harass the respondent. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to allow the transfer of the present proceedings and all the allegations brought against the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 are false and fabricated. 9. In that context, Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of dismissal of the prayer for enhancement in the D.V. Proceeding, the petitioner is still paying the maintenance to his wife and child regularly. Further, the F.C. (Civil) Case No. 657/2020 is filed by the present petitioner himself seeking divorce and hence, there cannot be any intention to cause delay in disposal of the petition/case, which is filed by the petitioner himself. Further, as the petitioner is still paying maintenance to his wife and child, there cannot be any reason to cause any prejudice to the respondent and her child. More so, the Presiding Officer is also well aware about the complaint filed before the Registrar General and in that event, there is no chance of getting any fair trial or justice in the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 10. Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of Page No.# 6/7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1966 Supreme (SC) 317, wherein it is observed by the Apex Court observed that “the law with regard to transfer of cases is well- settled. A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done”. 11. Citing the above referred judgment, it is also submitted by Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is reasonable apprehension of not getting the proper justice before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and accordingly, the present petition is filed seeking transfer of the cases. 12. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that basically the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the two cases i.e. the F.C. (Civil) Case No. 657/2020 and the F.C. (Crl) Case No. 47/2022, from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, to any other Court, within the same campus raising the issue that the petitioner may not get fair justice before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 and in that context he also lodged complaint before the Registrar General of the High Court supporting with an affidavit which is still pending. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the conduct of the present petitioner is not good and the prayer for appointment of Amicus Page No.# 7/7 Curiae was rightly dismissed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, as per the provision of the Family Courts Act. 15. Without commenting on the merit of the averments made in the present transfer petition and considering the faith of the petitioner in the given circumstances, casting aspersion on the end of the decision, interim decision if any of the said Court, which if it goes against the petitioner will leave a scare on the judicial decision, however correct it is, inclined this Court to consider the prayer for transfer. 16. Keeping in mind the dictum laid down by Lord Hewart in case of Rex vs. Sussex, Justices (1924) 1 KB 256 that “justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done”. 17. In the above backdrop, the ends of justice calls for allowing the prayer for transfer and accordingly, the same is allowed and the two cases i.e. the F.C. (Civil) Case No. 657/2020 and the F.C. (Crl) Case No. 47/2022, which are pending in the Family Court No. 1, be transferred to the Family Court No. 2, within the same campus, which are currently pending before the same Court i.e. in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Further, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the Court accordingly. 18. With the above decision, this transfer petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant