Transfer under Section 24 CPC requires reasonable apprehension of bias substantiated by cogent material.

The applicant (husband) and respondent (wife) married on February 8, 2024

Following matrimonial disputes, the applicant filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Satna, while the respondent filed for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in Panna

The Family Court at Panna initially granted interim maintenance of ₹3,000, which was later corrected to ₹15,000 via a typographical correction order dated March 22, 2025

The applicant filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to transfer the maintenance case from Panna to another district, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the respondent’s relatives are employed in the Panna Civil Court, the Police Department, and the Collector’s office

Whether the employment of a litigant’s relatives in local government or judicial institutions constitutes a sufficient ground for the transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC

Whether the correction of a typographical error in a maintenance order by the trial court justifies an apprehension of bias requiring a transfer

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants discretionary power to transfer cases

The court primarily applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants discretionary power to transfer cases. It relied on the settled principle that this power must be exercised sparingly and only when a "strong case is made out demonstrating reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done"

The court emphasized that mere allegations or conjectures regarding bias, without substantiating material, are insufficient to warrant a transfer

The Court observed that the applicant’s apprehension was based on conjectures rather than substantive evidence

It held that the mere fact that the respondent's relatives hold positions in public service (e.g., a driver for the Collector or a court employee) does not automatically result in undue influence or a denial of justice

Regarding the alleged threats from a relative in the police department, the Court noted that the applicant had already sought legal remedies through police complaints, and such threats do not inherently compromise the integrity of judicial proceedings

The Court scrutinized the maintenance order and found that the revision from ₹3,000 to ₹15,000 was a legitimate correction of a typographical error made in the presence of both parties' counsel

The Court clarified that the legality of a trial court's order must be challenged through appropriate appellate or revisional forums and cannot be used as a basis for a transfer petition

The Court concluded that the power under Section 24 CPC cannot be invoked on vague assertions

The application was dismissed for being devoid of merit