'To Preserve Confidence In Justice', Kerala High Court Transfers Family Court Case Over Litigant's Apprehension Of Bias

K. Salma Jennath

17 Aug 2026 6:32 PM IST

  • To Preserve Confidence In Justice, Kerala High Court Transfers Family Court Case Over  Litigants Apprehension Of Bias
    Listen to this Article

    The Kerala High Court recently permitted a case to be transferred from one Family Court to another after a litigant raised an issue of bias. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 448]

    Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. reserved opinion regarding the correctness of the allegation and observed that the case is being transferred only with a view to preserve the litigant's faith in the judiciary.

    It is only in cases where the previous proceedings reveal something beyond the judicial determination - such as personal prospective, extraneous interest, pre-judgment of the issues not before the court or conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of partiality - that a plea of bias succeeds…Without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations against the learned Judge, and solely with a view to preserving the confidence of the litigant in the administration of justice and to avoid any possible perception of bias, I am satisfied that it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct the transfer of the proceedings,” the Court opined.

    The Court was considering a wife's plea to transfer her petition for recovery of money and gold ornaments from Family Court, Thodupuzha to Family Court, Muvattupuzha. According to her, the Family Court, Thodupuzha had allowed her ex-husband's plea for divorce on cruelty without considering serious allegations made by her against him.

    The wife had contended that the divorce petition was filed in retaliation for her registering POCSO cases against the husband for sexually abusing their daughters. However, the Thodupuzha Court did not even consider the pendency of these cases while allowing the plea.

    She pointed out that an appeal has been filed challenging the decision and that a complaint was also filed before the Judicial Registrar (District Judiciary) alleging bias in deciding the case. Again, apprehending bias and prejudice, she approached the High Court seeking to transfer the petition for recovery of money and gold.

    The husband did not appear before the Court even though notice was served upon him.

    After hearing the wife/petitioner, the Court referred to Apex Court's decision in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant [2001 (1) SCC 182], wherein the test for bias was laid down.

    The Court then observed:

    It is beyond cavil that the law states that the test of bias is not whether the Judicial Officer believes himself/herself to be impartial nor whether the litigant subjectively feels aggrieved; the law adopts an objective standard, and the allegation of bias is examined from the standpoint of a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer who is neither the Judicial Officer nor the disgruntled litigantEqually, a judge's personal conviction that he or she can act fairly is not conclusive, as justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. Therefore, even if the judge honestly believes that he or she is impartial, the court must examine whether an objective observer would reasonably apprehend bias.”

    It added that the test must not be based on a litigant's perception since that would lead to every unsuccessful litigant alleging bias:

    If the test were based truly on the litigant's perception, every unsuccessful litigant could allege bias merely because an earlier case has been decided against him or her. Such a standard would seriously undermine judicial independence and the finality of adjudication. A litigant's dissatisfaction, suspicion or loss of confidence, however genuine, does not constitute legal bias unless the apprehension is one that an independent, reasonable and informed person would entertain.”

    Adverting to the facts of the case, the Court noted that a complaint has been made on the administrative side and that the husband had not responded to the same or the present petition. Thus, the Court was of the view that the petitioner's apprehension was not completely unfounded.

    With a view to restore her faith in the administration of justice, the Court allowed the plea and directed transfer of the petition.

    Case No: Tr.P(C) No. 135 of 2025

    Case Title: X v. X and Ors.

    Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 448

    Counsel for the petitioner: Silpa S., V.O. Philomina, Joseph Jose, Arthur B. George

    Click to Read/Download Order

    K. Salma Jennath

    K. Salma Jennath

    Salma Jennath is a Principal Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering Kerala High Court

    Next Story