The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea seeking to transfer matrimonial cases based on unsubstantiated bias allegations against a family court judge. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas imposed a Rs 15,000 fine on the petitioner, emphasizing that “A judicial officer cannot be browbeaten to suit the convenience of a party” and warned against using baseless claims to manipulate judicial proceedings.
Kerala: In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court issued a stern warning against manipulating judicial proceedings through unsubstantiated bias claims. The judgment came as Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas addressed a petition where a litigant sought to transfer his matrimonial cases from the family court in Thalassery to Vadakara, citing alleged bias by the presiding judge in Thalassery. The Court found these claims baseless and penalized the petitioner with a Rs 15,000 fine, payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Thalassery.
In the case of Noushad Flourish v XXXX & anr, the petitioner argued that the family court judge in Thalassery exhibited favoritism toward his wife. He claimed that the judge accepted his wife’s petitions without verification, issued ex-parte orders in her favor when he missed hearings, and routinely dismissed his documents as forgeries. The petitioner contended that consistent rulings on matters like maintenance and custody in favor of his wife suggested clear judicial bias.
However, Justice Thomas pointed out the lack of substantial evidence supporting these claims.
“A judicial officer cannot be browbeaten to suit the convenience of a party to a lis. Unless the allegations of bias against a judicial officer are sturdy and impregnable, courts cannot rely on mere apprehensions to transfer cases from one court to another,”
Justice Thomas observed. He emphasized that allegations based on dissatisfaction with rulings are insufficient for a case transfer.
The Court underscored the importance of protecting judicial integrity, asserting that meritless allegations of bias against a judicial officer weaken the judicial system and erode public confidence. Justice Thomas stated,
“A mere allegation of bias by itself can weaken the very edifice of the judicial system and even erode the confidence of the Officer,”
reiterating that bias claims require concrete evidence to be credible.
In this case, the Court determined that the petitioner’s request for transfer was an attempt to evade his obligations, as the pending petitions included around Rs 9 lakh in unpaid maintenance dues. Justice Thomas criticized the petitioner’s use of the transfer plea as a strategy to avoid financial responsibilities and prolong the litigation process.
“This Court also firmly believes that the transfer petition is a ploy to delay the proceedings and to browbeat the Presiding Officer from issuing orders in the various petitions pending consideration,”
he remarked.
The Kerala High Court further noted that this was not the petitioner’s first instance of leveling allegations against a judicial officer. Previously, the petitioner had raised nearly identical bias allegations against an earlier presiding officer handling his cases. Justice Thomas highlighted this pattern as an indication of the petitioner’s tendency to employ baseless accusations as a litigation tactic.
“The similarity of allegations raised against two different Presiding Officers who dealt with petitioner’s cases is a clear indication of petitioner’s calumny,”
he stated.
In concluding its decision, the Court dismissed the transfer plea, ordering a fine of Rs 15,000 to discourage similar actions in the future. Justice Thomas firmly stated,
“Such conduct has to be dealt with, with iron hands and must be visited with costs,”
emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining its impartiality and integrity.
By imposing the fine, the Kerala High Court sent a strong message that attempts to manipulate the judicial system through baseless allegations of bias will not be tolerated. This decision reinforces the importance of factual integrity in claims against judicial officers and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the integrity of the legal process.
Read the Order here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE