The Kerala High Court has ordered the transfer of a family court proceeding from Thodupuzha to Muvattupuzha after the petitioner raised concerns about possible bias before the same judicial officer. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. passed the order on August 4, 2026, stressing that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, described in the order as the former wife of the first respondent, had approached the High Court seeking transfer of O.P. No. 1 of 2024, which concerned recovery of money and gold ornaments. The proceeding was pending before the Family Court, Thodupuzha, and the petitioner sought its transfer to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.
The dispute arose against the backdrop of earlier matrimonial proceedings. The Family Court, Thodupuzha had previously dealt with a divorce and maintenance case involving the parties. The petitioner also referred to pending criminal proceedings arising from allegations of sexual abuse and said that she had separately complained before the Judicial Registrar of the High Court regarding the earlier judgment.
The first respondent, despite service of notice, did not appear before the High Court.
Court's Observation on Bias
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. examined the legal standard governing allegations of judicial bias. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, the Court noted that the question is not simply whether actual prejudice exists. Instead, the circumstances must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable and informed person.
The Court made it clear that a litigant's dissatisfaction with an earlier decision cannot, by itself, establish bias. There must be material capable of creating a reasonable apprehension of partiality. At the same time, a judge's own belief in their impartiality is not conclusive, because
“justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.”
Decision
Considering the circumstances, including the complaint made by the petitioner on the administrative side of the High Court and the absence of any response from the first respondent, the Court held that the apprehension raised could not, at that stage, be treated as “wholly unfounded.”
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the allegations against the judicial officer. It ordered the transfer solely to preserve the litigant's confidence in the administration of justice and avoid any possible perception of bias.
Accordingly, O.P. No. 1 of 2024 was transferred from the Family Court, Thodupuzha to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.
The Registry was directed to transmit the records, following which the Muvattupuzha Family Court was directed to issue notice to the parties.
Case Details
Case Title: XXXXX vs. XXXXX
Case Number: Tr.P(C) No. 135 of 2025
Judge: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.
Decision Date: August 4, 2026
