Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on a woman who accused a trial court judge of bias in a domestic violence case. Justice Sumeet Goel directed that the costs must be paid before she can continue her case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The petitioner, a woman involved in a domestic violence dispute, sought the transfer of her case to another judge, alleging bias on the part of the presiding magistrate. Her counsel claimed that the magistrate’s rulings demonstrated partiality against her and argued that the accused openly proclaimed influence over the judge. The allegations were presented without any substantial evidence.
The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s allegations as baseless and frivolous. Justice Goel held that dissatisfaction with a Court’s order does not justify transferring a case, especially in the absence of tangible evidence. The Court deemed the accusations against the magistrate as an unscrupulous attempt to malign the judiciary, warranting stern disapproval.
The Court underscored the importance of preserving judicial integrity and emphasized that such claims should not disrupt court proceedings without credible grounds. As a deterrent against such conduct, a cost of ₹10,000 was imposed on the petitioner. Justice Goel clarified that the pending petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act would be dismissed if the petitioner failed to deposit the costs and provide proof of payment to the trial magistrate. However, considering the petitioner’s age and the sensitive nature of matrimonial disputes, the Court set the cost at a reasonable amount.
Picture Source :
