Justice Archana Puri was hearing applications filed by the husband seeking transfer of three pending cases.

‘Onerous duty’

It noted that judges are tasked with the onerous duty of deciding cases where one party leaves dissatisfied, sometimes leading to frivolous allegations by disgruntled litigants.

“A judicial officer is tasked with the onerous duty of deciding the cases. Invariably, one party to the case would lose and go back unhappy. Many a times, disgruntled elements amongst them, wanting to settle scores, may raise frivolous allegations,” the court said.

The court also highlighted the heavy workload and challenging working conditions of trial courts.

“The trial Courts work under tremendous work pressure and also, many a times, there are trying working conditions. Looking at the number of cases the judicial officers handle in a day, often, they give their best, while discharging the duties, but many a times, if they insist any party, for recording and completion of the testimony of any witness, the parties concerned draw different inferences about the Presiding Officer to be biased,” the court remarked.

The court added that trial courts frequently attempt to facilitate amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes, yet even such efforts may attract unfounded allegations regarding the conduct of the presiding officer.

It observed that discharging the duties with the purpose of early disposal of the same does not amount to ill-will or bias, towards the party.

While dismissing the plea, the court noted that the transfer applications were a ploy to delay the proceedings and to browbeat the judge.

“Seemingly, the transfer applications are only a ploy to delay the proceedings and to browbeat the Presiding Officer, from issuing orders in various litigation, pending before him. This indicates the probability of the applicant to be all out, to delay the proceedings pending before the Court concerned,” the court remarked.

Transfer plea

In this case, the husband had filed transfer pleas to transfer the cases pending in the courts at Dhuri to Sangrur.

The husband alleged allegations of bias against the presiding officer on the ground that the adjournment request by the husband was declined and evidence by the husband was closed who was also the petitioner in the divorce petition filed in the court below.

On the other hand, the transfer plea was opposed by the respondent alleging that the transfer applications were filed only with a vested interest to stall the litigation and overawe the presiding officers.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd