7. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is gainfully employed. The claim of the petitioner that she is now   staying   with   her   parents   is   not   disputed   by   the respondent.   That   both   the   children   are   staying   with   the petitioner is also not disputed. The elder child is a girl aged about 11 years and whenever the case is fixed for hearing, the petitioner has to travel about 800 kms.

8. The respondent is working as Vigilance Officer in the Airport Authority of India. He is currently posted in Delhi. The fact that the marriage was solemnized at Indore is borne out by the pleadings in the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent. As per the averments contained in the Divorce Petition, the couple lived at Indore till July­2020.  Thereafter the couple lived in Delhi for some time.

9. The only reason why the respondent has chosen to file the Divorce Petition at Dwarka is that he is now posted in New Delhi and that the couple last resided together at New Delhi.

10. Keeping the above mentioned admitted facts in mind, if we look at the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is seen that the request for transfer is contested mainly on the ground that the petitioner’s mother is a retired employee of the District Court and that the petitioner’s elder brother is a practicing advocate and the younger brother is working in the I.T. department   of   the   Indore   Bench   of   the   Madhya Pradesh High Court and that they wield enormous influence.

11. To prove his contention regarding the status of the petitioner’s family and the influence that they allegedly have, the respondent has filed print outs of a few pages from the Facebook account of the petitioner’s brother. While one of those print outs has photographs taken on the occasion of a cricket tournament held under the aegis of Indore Bar Association and another print out relates to the greetings extended to the Ex­President of Indore Bar Association, the print outs of all other Facebook pages contain nothing other than   the   photographs   of   the   petitioner’s brother with comments revolving around some joyous occasions.

12. I do not know how the pictures taken on the occasion of a cricket tournament conducted by a Bar Association and witnessed by a few judicial officers can be an indication of the influence exerted by the petitioner’s family on the entire district judiciary, merely because the judicial officers and Advocates have stood shoulder to shoulder on that occasion. It was not a private event but an event open to all lawyers of the District Bar. The fact that the petitioner’s brother who is a lawyer, has a Facebook page and that the same has lot of followers and that it attracts a lot of comments and likes cannot be the basis to conclude that the petitioner’s brother is very influential with the local judiciary.

13. I am not convinced that there is any real likelihood of bias. Out of the seven print outs of the Facebook pages of the petitioner’s brother, filed by respondent as Annexures R/1, R/2 and R/3 (colly), only one contains the photographs of a few persons who had participated in the   cricket competition conducted by Indore Bar Association. On the basis of this, it is not appropriate to come to the conclusion that the respondent will not receive a fair treatment at the hands of the Family Court.

14. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to allow the transfer petition. Accordingly, the Divorce Petition H.M.A. No.3200 of 2019 titled as “Sachin Yadav Vs. Neetu Yadav”, pending before   the   Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   South   West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi is transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

15. Let the records of the case be transferred to the concerned court, without delay.