Family court judge shares personal mobile number, meets party in chamber; HC sets aside order

The Delhi High Court has set aside a family court's decision concerning the custody of a minor child after the mother raised an apprehension of bias on account of the judge sharing his mobile number with the parties and meeting the father in his chamber.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that while there was no doubt concerning the integrity, neutrality, and judicial independence of the family court judge, the judges have to remind themselves that their conduct is observed and noted, and therefore they may not act in a manner which gives rise to even slightest of doubt in the minds of the litigants and lawyers.

In the present case, the mother “narrated several incidents regarding the apprehension of bias” before the high court and claimed that the family court, while passing an order on the issue of visitation, focused solely on the rights of the father and his family while ignoring the comforts of the minor child who is heavily dependent on her and has never been separated from her.

The high court considered that it was not advisable for the family court judge to have shared his mobile number with the parties and said that it was a settled proposition that justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done.

“This court has also no doubt over the integrity, neutrality, and Judicial Independence of the learned Judge, Family Court. However, unfortunately, on account of the conduct of the judge for sharing his mobile number with both the parties and admittedly having met one of the party in the chamber has unnecessarily given a cause of reasonable apprehension of bias,” said the court in its order dated June 3.

“The judges have to remind themselves time and again that every conduct is observed and noted by the litigants and therefore, knowingly or unknowingly they may not act in any manner which gives rise to even slightest of doubt in the minds of the litigants and lawyers,” the court added.

Stating that allegation of bias has to be evaluated on the premises of “reasonable apprehension of bias” and the conduct of the judge while conducting the judicial proceedings should be above board, the court, in the interest of justice and to restore the faith of both the parties in the system of administration of justice, set aside orders passed on the aspect of custody of the child by the family court.

The court restored the guardianship petition concerning the minor child to its original number and asked the concerned family court's principal judge to keep the matter with himself/herself and decide the same by the law. 

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)