JUDGMENT Datta, J.: This is an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 1977 pending before Sri A. K. Bhattacharjee, Additional District Judge, 8th Court at Alipore to the Court of some other Additional District Judge for hearing and disposal. 2. The circumstances of the litigation between the parties out of which the said application arises may be briefly stated. In June, 1977 the petitioner then an alleged minor filed Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 1977, through her father as next friend against the respondent under sections 24 and 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 praying, inter alia, that the purported marriage between the parties be declared null and void and be annulled by a decree of nullity as the consent to the said marriage had been procured by force and fraud. The respondent filed written statement to contest the suit. In January, 1978 the petitioner alleging that she had attained majority elected to proceed with the suit. On 4.7.1979 the petitioner applied for amendment of the plaint to include particulars of fraud and coercion practised on her to obtain her consent to the marriage and an averment that the respondent had recurrent attach of epilepsy. When the said application for amendment was pending for order Sri. B. K. Datta, the then Additional District Judge presiding over the 8th Court made an attempt on 14.7.1979 to bring about reconciliation between the parties and recorded the Order No. 44 dated 140.7.79 as follows; "Both parties present by filing haziras. Their lawyers are also present. Heard the Learned lawyers of both sides. Also heard the parties separately in my chamber as the petitioner expressed her un willingness to be heard jointly in my chamber. I personally made attempts for reconciliation but the attempt failed. Put up on 27.7.79 for hearning of the amendment petition. Sd/- B. K. Datta, Additional District Judge". 3. On 20.11.79 after hearing the parties the said learned Additional District Judge passed order allowing the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint. In Revision the High Court reversed that order. The Supreme Court by its order dated 23.2.1981 restored the order of the trial court allowing the amendment subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2, 000/- by the petitioner to the respondent within a month from that date. In Revision the High Court reversed that order. The Supreme Court by its order dated 23.2.1981 restored the order of the trial court allowing the amendment subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2, 000/- by the petitioner to the respondent within a month from that date. In July, 1981 Sri A. K. Bhattacharjee became the Presiding Officer of the 8th Court of Additional District Judge at Alipore and started dealing with the suit. On 5.1.1982 the respondent filed a petition for leave to deliver certain interrogatories to the petitioner. The learned Judge after hearing the parties rejected the said petition by his order dated 22.1.82. Thereafter on the respondent's prayer the learned Judge allowed time till 6.4.82 to bring stay order from the High Court and in default, fixed the suit for peremptory :tearing on 6.4.82. Thereafter as no stay order was brought by the respondent the learned Judge recorded the following Order No. 96 dated 6.4 82. 96. "Dated: 6.4.82. Respondent files hazira. Petitioner files hazira at 2.10 p. m. The learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the suit should be dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The submission is however, opposed by the lawyer's petitioner who submits that they appeared before the Judge in time when he was presiding over District Judge's Court, considered. The prayer for dismissal of the suit is rejected. This suit is being contested tooth and nail. I find that once before an attempt for reconciliation was made by my predecessor but it failed. After considering the facts of the case I think another attempt should be made for reconciliation for the ends of justice. Today I had taken up the files of the District Judge and there is hardly any time to take up the matter. So when the suit is being adjourned, let there be a further attempt for reconcliation. Fix 24.4.82 for reconciliation. Parties to remain present personally on that day. S/d- A. Bhatterjee. Additional District Judge". The next four orders which are also relevant are as follows: "97. Dated 24.4.82. Both parties are ready. The parties attend personally and reconciliation proceeding is conducted in my chamber. The reconciliation matter, however, fails. Fix 5.5.82 for inspection of the documents filed by the respondent. Sd/- A. Bhattacharjee 98. Dated: 5.5.82. Additional District Judge" Respondent files a list of documents without documents. Copy served and objected to. Dated 24.4.82. Both parties are ready. The parties attend personally and reconciliation proceeding is conducted in my chamber. The reconciliation matter, however, fails. Fix 5.5.82 for inspection of the documents filed by the respondent. Sd/- A. Bhattacharjee 98. Dated: 5.5.82. Additional District Judge" Respondent files a list of documents without documents. Copy served and objected to. Let it be kept with the record. Petitioner files a petition for adjournment of the case for purpose of inspection of the document on the grounds stated therein. Copy served and objected to. Heard The matrimonial suits are required to be disposed of within 6 months, but this suit has been going on for the last 5 years. Hence no further time will be allowed to make the life of the suit longer. The suit be fixed for P. hearing on 12.7.82. Inspection may be completed in the meantime. Sd/- A. Bhattacharjee Additional District Judge. Seen. Sd/- T. K. Banerjee. Advocate. 5.5.82 99. Dated: 12.782 Respondent files hazira. Petitioner files a petition alongwith a medical certificate praying for an adjournment of hearing of the suit on the ground that she is ill. Copy served and objected to, endorsed on the petition. Head. The prayer is allowed in the circumstances stated. Let the suit be adjourned to 4.8.82 for P. H. as last chance. The petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- as costs (C. P.) Sd/- A. Bhattacharjee Additional District Judge. 100. Dated 4.8.82. Respondent files hazira. Petitioner files a petition praying for an adjournment of hearing of the suit on the grounds stated therein. Copy served and objected to endorsed on the petition. Heard both parties. The prayer appears to be genuine one and is allowed. To 16.8.82 for P. H. No further time will be allowed. Sd/- A. Bhattacharjee Additional District Judge.” 4. On 13.8.82 the petitioner filed an application before the learned Judge praying for releasing the suit from his file as she wanted to move the learned District Judge under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To 16.8.82 for P. H. No further time will be allowed. Sd/- A. Bhattacharjee Additional District Judge.” 4. On 13.8.82 the petitioner filed an application before the learned Judge praying for releasing the suit from his file as she wanted to move the learned District Judge under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that application reference was made to the attempt made by the learned Judge to bring about reconciliation between the parties and the petitioner's apprehension that she would be seriously prejudiced if the suit was heard by the learned Judge, in paragraphs 4 to 6 of her application which are as follows: "(4) That after the amendment of the pleading and filing of the additional written statement filed by the Respondent your Honour was pleased to initiate another reconciliation proceeding and your Honour tried his level best to effect such reconciliation but the same also failed. (5) That during the course of the reconciliation proceeding your petitioner found the learned Judge very co-operating and very religious minded having every regard for truth and great faith in Hindu religion and two pictures of Shri Shri Ramkrishna Deb and Shri Shri Siteramdas Onkarji were found placed in the table of the learned Judge in his chamber. (6) That during such discussion your Honour was pleased to make reference to Hindu religion and saints and spiritual leaders of earlier days who according to the learned Judge were all against giving divorce and your Honour was found making reference to their preaching, writing etc. deprecating divorce and your Honour also said that your Honour might follow their guidelines in the matter of conducting matrimonial proceedings between two Hindus and your Honour also expressed his views that your Honour was personally against giving divorce. The sentiment is highly commendable. But with due respect and regard for your Honour and with due humility your petitioner submits that your petitioner's case is such and the evidence that will be led is such that Honour's religion findings and views and statutory provisions may stand for cross-purposes. The sentiment is highly commendable. But with due respect and regard for your Honour and with due humility your petitioner submits that your petitioner's case is such and the evidence that will be led is such that Honour's religion findings and views and statutory provisions may stand for cross-purposes. Your petitioner too as a Hindu girl has obvious prejudices and inhibition in the contest of the learned Court's religious feelings has made your petitioner apprehensive that if the hearing of the suit is taken up by your Honour your petitioner will not feel free to make cleanbreast of everything and to lend evidence accordingly, That your petitioner also reasonably apprehends that under the circumstances your petitioner shall be seriously prejudiced if the suit is taken up for hearing by your Honour". 5. The respondent filed objection supported by an affidavit. The learned Judge after hearing the parties passed the order dated 16.8.82 observing, inter alia, as follows:- “During my last 24 years of judicial career this is the first time that I received a petition containing insulting and scurrilous statements arising an imaginery attitude to myself on the subject of matrimonial disputes between two parties professing Hindu faith. The allegations made in this respect are false and false to the knowledge of the petitioner who has possible been ill advised to file such a petition. I can only say that there was no occasion or even any remote chance of causing, any occasion on behalf of the petitioner to make an allegation of this type. This Judge does not preach himself to be an exponent of Hindu religion and he knows his business well about the scope of a reconciliation proceeding. He is not expected to be such a fool as to declare before a party that he was not in favour of allowing a divorce amongst the Hindus. Moreover, this was not a Hindu marriage at all. It was a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the parties are accidentally Hindus. If, therefore a person was to maintain the morality of Hindu marriage, it was rather probable on his part to advocate to divorce between the parties repudiating such marriage. It is very easy to scandalize a Judge in this fashion and I have no weapon to check it. If, therefore a person was to maintain the morality of Hindu marriage, it was rather probable on his part to advocate to divorce between the parties repudiating such marriage. It is very easy to scandalize a Judge in this fashion and I have no weapon to check it. If, however, it is a device to get an indefinite postponement of hearing of the suit, I should say it is a cunning but an ignominious way of seeking adjournment.” 6. In the present application made before this Court, as Sri A. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned Judge started presiding over the Court of District Judge after the permanent incumbent had been transferred, the petitioner has embellished her case for transfer, of the suit by pleading the following grounds:- (1) The learned Judge resorted to second reconciliation proceeding after a gulf of years which was not warranted by law. (2) During the grueling reconciliation proceeding forced upon her the petitioner came to the reasonable conclusion that the learned Judge was basically an anti-divorced Judge and was much too conscious of and embedded in the Hindu devout religious tradition and basically discountinenced the idea of a Hindu couple separating after marriage. Although the petitioner was appreciative of integrity, piety and the religious fervour of the learned trial Judge, she reasonably felt apprehension that so far as the petitioner's case was concerned, her point of view might not be appreciated by him. (3) On July 12, 1982 the petitioner was ill and incapable of attending Court and accordingly she prayed for time. The learned, trial Judge granted such prayer and adjourned the hearing of the suit to 4.8.82 as a last chance but penalised the petitioner by directing her to pay Rs. 100/- as costs as a condition precedent. But by this time the petitioner became absolutely convinced that the learned Judge was against the petitioner. (4) The observations made by the learned Judge in his order dared 16.8.82 intensified the petitioner’s apprehension that the would not get a fair and unbiased hearing from him. 7. The respondent has• opposed the present application by filing affidavit-in-opposition, traversing the material allegations made by the petitioner. 8. (4) The observations made by the learned Judge in his order dared 16.8.82 intensified the petitioner’s apprehension that the would not get a fair and unbiased hearing from him. 7. The respondent has• opposed the present application by filing affidavit-in-opposition, traversing the material allegations made by the petitioner. 8. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has in his submissions before this Court referred to the aforesaid grounds and argued that the question for consideration is what effect is likely to be produced in the mind of the particular litigant by the conduct of the learned Judge and it is the feeling of the petitioner in this case which should determine the result of the present application. In this connection be has relied on the Bench decision in the case of (1) Gora Chand Das v. Smt. Dipali Das, 1976(2) CLJ 380 . The learned Advocate for the respondent has sought to repell the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. After giving careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the present application for transfer of the suit must fail as the apprehension at the petitioner that she will not get a fair; trial from the learned Judge, Sri A. K. Bhattacharjee who according to her is an anti-divorce judge, is utterly imaginary and devoid of reason. We with due respect agree with the observation of Dua, J. (as the learned judge then as) in (2) Dr. Hardit Singh v. Bhagat Jaswant Singh, AIR 1964 Punjab 277 that fanciful idea imaginary suspicion aged capricious belief are no substitute for and cannot be equated with reasonable apprehension. In Gora Chand's case 1976(2) CLJ 380 the learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted before the Court that his client had no objection if the suit was transferred but he opposed the application for transfer on principle. The Division Bench having regard to the circumstances of that particular case allowed the application for ends of justice, observing that justice should not only be done but must be manifestly seen to be done and without entertaining any doubt about the integrity and impartiality of the learned Additional District Judge before whom the suit was pending. The Division Bench having regard to the circumstances of that particular case allowed the application for ends of justice, observing that justice should not only be done but must be manifestly seen to be done and without entertaining any doubt about the integrity and impartiality of the learned Additional District Judge before whom the suit was pending. This decision does not in our view lay down that the petitioner’s apprehension of the Judge's bias is the sole criterion in every case arising out of application under section 24 of the Code, irrespective of its circumstances. In the present case, having, regard to the fact that there was abortive attempt made on 14.7.79 to bring about reconciliation between the parties in course of which the petitioner declined to be heard jointly with the respondent in the chamber of the then Presiding Judge Sri B. K. Dutta, there was nothing wrong on toe part of the learned Judge Sri A. K. Bhattacharjee to make another attempt to effect a reconciliation between the parties before proceeding to grant any relief in the suit Section 34(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 imposes a duty on the Court to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties in the first instance in every case where it is possible to do so consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case and the said provisions does not in our view rule out more than one endavour for such purpose, if the circumstances justify. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner raised any such objection as is raised before this Court either 6.4.82 when tile reconciliation proceeding was fixed to be held on 24.4.82 or on the latter date, On the other hand, the petitioner participated in such proceeding. Nor did the petitioner make any grievance that Such proceeding was illegal in her application for release of the suit filed before the learned Judge on 13.8.82. The submission made on her behalf before us that it was illegal and caused apprehension in the mind of the petitioner as to the impartiality of the learned Judge is in our view an after thought and without substance. It is therefore overruled. 10. There is nothing on record to indicate that the reconciliation proceeding before the learned Judge was a grueling one as stated in the present application. It is therefore overruled. 10. There is nothing on record to indicate that the reconciliation proceeding before the learned Judge was a grueling one as stated in the present application. The insinuations made by the petitioner to the effect that the learned Judge attempted to impose his religious beliefs about Hindu sacramental marriage creating indissoluble the between husband and wife are in our view incredible. The learned Judge in his order has denied the allegations that he referred to the preaching and writings of great saints and spiritual leaders of Hindu religion deprecating divorce and expressly desired to follow their guidelines in the conduct of matrimonial proceedings between two Hindus. He has described such allegations as false and false to the knowledge of the petitioner. In our view there is no antinomy between justice and religion. One can be devoutly religious whatever be the religion professed, and at the same time an ideal judge at the religious beliefs and practices of a judge do not in any way create any impediment to the impartial dispensation of justice according to law by him. At more than one place in the present application, the petitioner has described the learned Judge as anti-divorce. To accept this imaginary ground for transfer would mean disqualifying the learned Judge from trying not only the present suit but any other suit for divorce between two Hindus in future. In our view such expression of a reckless suspicion against a senior member of higher judicial service who was the senior most judge after the District Judge, 24-parganas during the relevant time is to say the least most unwarranted if not preposterous. The order dated 16.8.82 of the learned Judge shows that he was quite conscious of the fact that the marriage in question between the parties was not a Hindu marriage but a marriage governed by the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the parties are incidentally Hindus. It is inconceivable that the learned Judge is unable to distinguish between the incidents of Shastric Hindu marriage and marriage governed by Special Marriage Act. Even under ancient Hindu Law as administered by the courts, a marriage could be declared a nullity on grounds for force and fraud or impotency and divorce by custom as recognized. It is inconceivable that the learned Judge is unable to distinguish between the incidents of Shastric Hindu marriage and marriage governed by Special Marriage Act. Even under ancient Hindu Law as administered by the courts, a marriage could be declared a nullity on grounds for force and fraud or impotency and divorce by custom as recognized. In our view the petitioner was ill-advised to take the ground of branding the learned Judge as anti-divorce, which is utterly untenable and we without hesitation reject it altogether. 11. As regards the supposed apprehension of the petitioner arising from the order dated 12.7.82 by which the learned Judge allowed the petitioner’s prayer for adjournment of the suit on the ground of illness inspite of objection by the respondent, and directed the petitioner to pay cost of Rs. 100/- as condition precedent to further hearing, it cannot be said that such apprehension is reasonable. Earlier the petitioner had to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs under Order of the Supreme Court which restored the trial court’s order allowing amendment of the plaint. So the amount of cost awarded by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be exhorbitant. Moreover, by the next order dated 4.8.82 the learned Judge suffered from any bias or one sided inclination of mind against her. Moreover, this is also a new ground not taken in the earlier petition filed on 13.8.82. 12. The last ground taken on behalf of the petitioner is the strongly worded reaction of the learned Judge to the petitioner’s application before him for release of the suit. But the petitioner allegations against the learned Judge more than 14 weeks after his bona fide attempt to bring about a reconciliation between the parties, regarding the learned Judge’s role in the said proceeding and those create a situation which would naturally arouse righteous indignation in him and then take advantage of the same by making it a ground for transfer of the suit. We are, however, confident that the feelings more or sorrow than anger aroused in the learned Judge have been assuaged by lapse of time and will not get the better of his judicial impartiality in trying the suit between the parties and will not prevent him from doing even handed justice to them. We are, however, confident that the feelings more or sorrow than anger aroused in the learned Judge have been assuaged by lapse of time and will not get the better of his judicial impartiality in trying the suit between the parties and will not prevent him from doing even handed justice to them. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed with costs assessted at 10 G. M. S. Mookerjee, J. : I agree.