Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Husband's Transfer Plea, Says Family Court's Insistence On Personal Appearance Doesn't Show Bias
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a husband's petition seeking transfer of a matrimonial case from Family Court at Tirupati, holding that the Family Court's insistence on his personal appearance in the proceedings could not, by itself, give rise to an apprehension of bias or justify transfer of the case.[2026 LiveLaw (AP) 107]
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao was hearing a transfer petition filed by a husband seeking withdrawal of a restitution of conjugal rights petition pending before the Family Court, Tirupati, and its transfer to another competent court in Chittoor district.
The Court observed:
“The aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner/husband herein that he will not receive any fair and impartial trial is baseless and no prima facie material has been placed by the petitioner/husband that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Tirupati, is acting unfairly influenced by some extraneous considerations. As stated supra, “mere apprehension is not a ground for seeking transfer of a case from one Court to another Court”. ”
The husband, a software engineer residing in the United States since 2014, sought transfer of the case alleging bias on the part of the Family Court at Tirupati. He contended that the trial Judge acted unfairly by directing him to make arrangements for virtual appearance despite his residence abroad, giving rise to an apprehension that he would not receive a fair trial.
The matrimonial dispute arose out of a marriage solemnised in May 2023. The husband alleged that after the parties moved to the United States, the wife subjected him to mental cruelty, frequently quarrelled with him, used abusive language, displayed extreme suspicion and isolated him from friends and family. He stated that mediation efforts had failed and that he had already instituted divorce proceedings.
The wife denied the allegations and claimed that it was the husband who had subjected her to physical and psychological cruelty before deserting her. She further pointed out that she had instituted petitions for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance before the Family Court at Tirupati and that the husband had repeatedly failed to participate in those proceedings.
The High Court noted that the husband's grievance stemmed from the Family Court's insistence on his appearance in the restitution proceedings after he had obtained exemption from personal appearance in a separate matrimonial case. However, it found no material to support the allegation that the Presiding Officer was acting unfairly or under extraneous influence.
Examining the record, the Court found that the husband's personal appearance had not been dispensed with in the restitution proceedings. It further noted that the directions requiring his appearance were already under challenge in a separate civil revision petition pending before the High Court.
The Court found no material to support the allegation that the Presiding Officer was acting unfairly or under any extraneous influence. It also rejected the judgments relied upon by the husband as distinguishable on facts and observed that, since all matrimonial proceedings between the parties were pending at Tirupati, transferring one case would not serve the convenience of either party.
Holding that the apprehension of bias was unsupported by any evidence and that the Family Court's insistence on the husband's appearance could not justify transfer of the proceedings, the High Court dismissed the transfer petition.
Case Title: Varun Jeeri v. Siddavatam Pujitha @ Pujitha Jeeri
Case No.: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 387 of 2025.
Counsel for Petitioner: G V S Kishore Kumar
Counsel for Respondent: Soora Venkata Sainath