A Principal Family Court has ordered the transfer of a matrimonial dispute—comprising divorce and child custody proceedings—away from the file of the V Additional Family Court, following serious allegations regarding procedural lapses and judicial bias.
The order was passed in a transfer petition moved by the wife, who sought to shift the proceedings on multiple grounds concerning the conduct of the trial.
Advocate Rahul Jagannathan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-wife, argued that the continuation of the trial before the current court would severely prejudice his client’s case. He raised the following core contentions before the Court:
- Denial of Legal Representation: Mr Rahul Jagannathansubmitted that the Learned Judge rejected an application filed under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It was argued that by disallowing this petition, the court effectively curtailed the wife’s fundamental right to be properly represented through her legal counsel.
- Refusal of Virtual Hearing (Video Conferencing): Mr Rahul Jagannathan argued that the trial court explicitly refused to allow the wife to appear via video conferencing. This refusal, the petitioner contended, caused grave prejudice and ran directly contrary to the prevailing e-filing/VC notifications and the landmark mandates laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing virtual access to justice.
- Observations Contrary to Record: Mr Rahul Jagannathan further alleged that the Learned Judge repeatedly passed adverse remarks and strictures against the wife during the proceedings, which the petitioner claimed were entirely unsupported by and contrary to the actual facts on record.
- Orders Passed on Oral Requests: TMr Rahul Jagannathan also flagged procedural impropriety, asserting that the trial court had passed substantive orders based merely on oral requests made by the husband, bypassing the mandated procedure of requiring written applications with advance copies served to the opposite party.
Taking note of these submissions and to ensure the apprehension of bias was mitigated, the Principal Family Court allowed the transfer application, directing the case files to be transmitted to the new court for adjudication in accordance with the law.
#FamilyCourt #DivorceCase #ChildCustody #CustodyDispute #FamilyLaw #DivorceLawyer #DivorceLawyersInChennai #FamilyCourtCase #JudicialBias #LegalRepresentation #CourtTransfer #FamilyLawAttorney #ChildCustodyCase #DivorceLitigation #ChennaiLawyer #DivorceLawFirm
#FamilyCourt #DivorceCase #ChildCustody #CustodyDispute #FamilyLaw #DivorceLawyer #DivorceLawyersInChennai #FamilyCourtCase #JudicialBias #LegalRepresentation #CourtTransfer #FamilyLawAttorney #ChildCustodyCase #DivorceLitigation #ChennaiLawyer #DivorceLawFirm
