Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajnish Pathak vs Shivangi Pathak (2025:Rj-Jd:11137) on 25 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:11137]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crl.misc.trnfr.pet. No. 2/2025
Rajnish Pathak S/o Shri Radheshyam Pathak, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Flat No. 562, Uf Floor West, Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shivangi Pathak W/o Shri Rajnish Pathak, Aged About 41
Years, D/o Shri Omprakash Kapuriya R/o 1-D-65,
Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Dist. Bikaner,raj.
2. Ramya Pathak D/o Shri Rajnish Pathak, Aged About 18
Years, R/o 1-D-65, Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Dist.
Bikaner,raj.
3. Shivansh Pathak S/o Shri Rajnish Pathak, Aged About 12
Years, Through The Mother Smt. Shivangi Pathak W/o
Shri Rajnish Pathak, R/o 1-D-65, Jainarayan Vyas Colony,
Dist. Bikaner,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salman Agha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
25/02/2025
The present transfer petition under Section 447 of BNSS has
been filed by the petitioner-husband for transferring the Cr. Misc.
Case No.248/2020 (CIS No.354/2020) pending before the Family
Court No.1, Bikaner to any other competent court.
Counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the
Presiding Officer of Family Court No.1, Bikaner is explicitly
behaving unfairly and is biased against the petitioner and
therefore, it is submitted that no justice could be achieved if the
petitioner is continued to be heard by the same Presiding Officer.
Counsel submits that the Presiding Officer of Family Court No.1,
[2025:RJ-JD:11137] (2 of 3) [CRLTP-2/2025]
Bikaner has granted number of adjournment on the request of the
respondent-wife to lead her evidence, but when the petitioner was
ill and sought adjournment, the Presiding Officer rejected his
application and subsequently closed his evidence without
providing ample opportunities for the same. The petitioner-
husband has challenged the said order of closing his evidence
before this Court. Counsel shows that the aforesaid situation
shows that the Presiding Officer is influenced from the respondent-
wife and therefore, there is no hope to get justice from the said
Presiding Officer. It is therefore prayed that the Cr. Misc. case may
be transferred from Family Court No.1, Bikaner to any other Court
at Bikaner.
Learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner-
husband and submitted that since the case is pending since 2020
and therefore, the Presiding Officer is desirous to decide the same
as early as possible. The allegations levelled by the petitioner
against the Presiding Officer are false and bogus.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Firstly, it is crucial to uphold the integrity and independence
of the judiciary. Judicial officers are expected to perform their
duties with impartiality, objectivity, and in good faith. The
presumption is that a judge, in the course of his or her judicial
duties, exercises discretion and judgment based on the facts and
the law. Allegations of bias or misconduct against a presiding
officer should not be taken lightly, and it is important that any
such allegations are substantiated by concrete evidence.
[2025:RJ-JD:11137] (3 of 3) [CRLTP-2/2025]
In this case, the petitioner has leveled serious allegations of
bias against the Presiding Officer of Family Court No. 1, Bikaner.
However, it is important to emphasize that mere allegations,
without substantial evidence, cannot form the basis for the
transfer of a case. The burden to prove these allegations rests
squarely with the petitioner, and the mere assertion of bias,
without clear and convincing evidence, is insufficient to warrant
such a drastic step. To transfer a case on the basis of such
allegations would not only set a harmful precedent but would also
undermine public confidence in the judicial process.
Moreover, the case has been pending since 2020, and a
considerable amount of time has passed without the matter being
decided. It is also important to recognize that any decision to
transfer a case based on allegations of bias must be done with
caution. It is not just a matter of addressing the claims of the
petitioner but also preserving the functioning of the court system
and the confidence of the public in the judiciary. If every
unfounded or unproven allegation of bias led to the transfer of
cases, it could result in an unnecessary disruption of judicial
proceedings and a burden on the system as a whole.
Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court does not find any force in the allegations levelled
by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer of Family Court
No.1, Bikaner.
Hence, the transfer petition being bereft of merit is hereby
dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
151-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
