Relative of party practicing as Advocate in same judgeship does not justify transfer of proceedings.

The applicant (husband) filed a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to move Divorce Case No. 30 of 2024 from the Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, to Meerut or Bijnor.

The applicant raised two primary grounds: first, that the case had previously been transferred within Muzaffarnagar from Family Court No. 2 to Family Court No. 1 following a recommendation on 16.10.2025; and second, that the opposite party’s (wife's) real brother is a practicing advocate in Muzaffarnagar, creating an apprehension of prejudice.

The opposite party contested the application, noting that the inner-district transfer was conducted with the presiding officer's "no objection" and provided no basis for a transfer outside the district.

1. Whether the prior administrative transfer of a case between courts within the same judgeship creates a vested right or justification for a transfer to a different district under Section 24 CPC?

2. Whether the mere fact that a relative of a party is a practicing advocate in the concerned judgeship constitutes a "real and reasonable apprehension of prejudice" sufficient to warrant a transfer?

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants discretionary power to transfer suits.

Discretion must be exercised "judiciously" and "sparingly" to ensure a fair trial rather than to satisfy a litigant's preference for a forum.

The principle that "expedient for the ends of justice" requires an apprehension that is real, reasonable, and bona fide, supported by objective material, rather than mere conjectures or speculative assertions.

The Court reasoned that the earlier transfer from Family Court No. 2 to No. 1 within Muzaffarnagar effectively addressed any prior grievances, and such internal administrative shifts do not entitle a party to seek a transfer outside the district.

The Court held that the professional identity of a relative (an advocate) does not create a presumption of bias.

The Court emphasized that judicial officers are presumed to act independently and that allowing transfers based solely on a relative's profession would lead to "anomalous consequences" where trials depend on "fortuitous personal circumstances" rather than legal standards.

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide any "tangible material" demonstrating actual intimidation or denial of a fair opportunity.

Section 24 CPC is intended to safeguard justice against objective prejudice, not to accommodate "generalized suspicions" or "unfounded apprehensions".

The Court concluded that there was no sufficient cause to transfer the proceedings from the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar.

No order as to costs was made.