Mere Apprehension of Bias Not Enough to Transfer Family Court Case, Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a husband's petition to transfer his wife's restitution case from Tirupati, holding that unsubstantiated apprehension of judicial bias cannot justify transfer under Section 24 CPC.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati dismissed a transfer petition filed by a software engineer based in the United States, who sought to move his wife's restitution of conjugal rights case away from the Family Court at Tirupati. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, sitting singly, found that the petitioner's claim of judicial bias rested entirely on apprehension, with no prima facie material placed on record to show that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Tirupati was acting unfairly or under extraneous influence. The order, pronounced on 15 June 2026, reaffirms that a party's discomfort with a trial court's procedural directions does not, by itself, constitute a ground for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Matrimonial Proceedings at Tirupati

The parties married on 10 May 2023 and subsequently moved to the United States, where the petitioner, Varun Jeeri, has been employed as a software engineer since 2014. The marriage broke down, and multiple proceedings were initiated before different Family Courts.

The respondent-wife, Siddavatam Pujitha alias Pujitha Jeeri, filed F.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2025 before the Family Court at Tirupati under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed F.C.O.P. No. 200 of 2025 before the same court seeking maintenance. The petitioner-husband, for his part, filed a divorce petition — F.C.O.P. No. 209 of 2025 — on the ground of severe mental cruelty, alleging that the wife was quarrelsome, used filthy language, was psychotically suspicious, threw objects in anger, isolated him from friends, and showed cruelty towards his parents. Mediation between the parties failed.

The wife's counter-affidavit presented a different account. She stated that she was subjected to physical and psychological cruelty by the husband on account of his vices, and that he deserted her by leaving her at her parents' house on the pretext of visiting his ill mother. She further stated that the husband had not appeared before the trial court in any manner, causing repeated adjournments, and that the trial court had set him ex-parte by order dated 09 November 2025.

The Transfer Petition and the Bias Allegation

The petitioner filed Tr.C.M.P. No. 387 of 2025 under Section 24 CPC, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2025 from the Family Court at Tirupati and transfer it to any other competent Family Court or to a court trying matters under the Hindu Marriage Act in Chittoor District.

The primary ground was an alleged apprehension of bias. The petitioner's counsel, Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, argued that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Tirupati was exhibiting “high restlessness” in taking up the matter, attributable to the fact that the petitioner had approached the High Court in a separate transfer petition seeking exemption from personal appearance. The petitioner also contended that the trial court's direction asking him — a resident of the USA — to himself make arrangements for virtual mode hearing amounted to wilful non-compliance with a High Court order and demonstrated clear prejudice against him.

The petitioner's counsel cited several decisions in support, including judgments of the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, Anuradha Bhashin v. Union of India, and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, as well as decisions of the Madras, Delhi, Allahabad, and Gujarat High Courts. The court noted all these citations but found their facts inapplicable to the present case.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Gopala Krishna Rao examined the procedural history of F.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2025 in detail. On 22 September 2025, the petitioner's father appeared before the Family Court at Tirupati and sought time for his son's appearance; the case was posted to 24 October 2025. On that date, the trial court directed the petitioner to appear on 09 November 2025. Against that direction, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 3048 of 2025 before the High Court, which was pending adjudication.

The court drew a clear distinction between two separate transfer proceedings. Tr.C.M.P. No. 124 of 2025 was filed by the wife in connection with the divorce case that the husband had filed before the Family Court at Visakhapatnam. That petition was allowed, and the petitioner's personal appearance was dispensed with in F.C.O.P. No. 209 of 2025 only. The present petition, Tr.C.M.P. No. 387 of 2025, concerned F.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2025 — the wife's restitution case at Tirupati — in which no such exemption had been granted.

The court found that the petitioner had conflated the two proceedings. He had not filed any petition before the High Court seeking exemption from personal appearance specifically in F.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2025. The apprehension that the trial court was biased because the petitioner had approached the High Court in a different matter was therefore factually unsupported.

On the convenience argument, the court observed that the petitioner was residing in the United States while the respondent-wife was residing at Tirupati, where all three cases were pending before the Family Court. Transferring F.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2025 to another court in Chittoor District would not be convenient to either party. The court stated plainly that

Outcome

Tr.C.M.P. No. 387 of 2025 was dismissed. The court made no order as to costs. Any interim order granted in the transfer petition and any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed. C.R.P. No. 3048 of 2025, filed by the petitioner against the trial court's order dated 09 November 2025, and the wife's maintenance petition in F.C.O.P. No. 200 of 2025, remain pending before their respective forums.