S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for transfer of a matrimonial matter in Case No. 418 of 1991 (Jai prakash Hilori v. Smt. Santosh Hilori, from the Family Court at Meerut to the Court of Civil judge at Muzaffanagar. The grounds for the proposed transfer are that the Family Court has failed to observe the statutory directions concerning an endeavour to settle the matter amicably and it was under the influence of the opposite party who happens to be an Income Tax commissioner. The applicant apprehended that she could not get fair trial at Meerut in the family Court. It was further contended that the applicant had filed a maintenance case against the respondent-husband under Section 125, Cr. P. C. at Muzaffamagar and the case is pending and it was desirable that the two matters be heard together. It appears from the application that the matrimonial suit between the parties was originally filed at Kanpur. The applicant moved for transfer under Section 24, C. P. C. and the High Court had directed on 2. 2. 1996 in Civil Misc. Application No. 57 of 1993 that the case be heard at Meerut. Since then the Meerut Court is exercising jurisdiction in the matter. ( 2 ) IT is now stated that after receipt of the record on transfer, the Family Court at Meerut had fixed a further date for reconciliation and directed the parties to come with their relations. The husband was also directed to bring the children so that the wife could meet them. There was a further direction that the amount of alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act be paid to the wife. On the date fixed, however, the husband was absent and the suit was dismissed for. default. On a subsequent petition moved by him, the suit was restored and forgetting the earlier orders the Family Court fixed a short date for filing the written statement. The husband had failed to pay the alimony and the arrears of the maintenance in time and the order of the Family court fixing the date of written statement was passed hastily. The family Court had rejected the prayer of the present applicant made under Order 6 Rule 5, C. P. C. asking certain better particulars from the husband. The husband had failed to pay the alimony and the arrears of the maintenance in time and the order of the Family court fixing the date of written statement was passed hastily. The family Court had rejected the prayer of the present applicant made under Order 6 Rule 5, C. P. C. asking certain better particulars from the husband. It was contended that the Judge of the family Court was under influence of the husband and the offering as seat to him in side his Chambers. It was contended that the case under Section 125, Cr. P. C. filed by the present applicant against the other party was pending at Muzaffarnagar. It was contended that the Family Courts orders were not open to revision and the only way out was to have the case transferred from Meerut. By a supplementary affidavit it was stated that the applicant was threatened by unknown persons, who are the men of the husband and it was not safe for her to have the case heard at Meerut. ( 3 ) SO far the grievances against the judicial order are concerned it is true that no revision lie against an order of the Family Court but a bare reading of Section 19 of the Family Court Act indicates that an appeal is provided for from every order not being an interlocutory order. Section reads-19. Appeal- (1) save as provided in Sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, no being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. ( 4 ) A revision is always barred against an interlocutory order and the appeal under Section 19 against an interlocutory orders are also barred. Other orders of a Family Court, not in the nature of interlocutory orders, are appealable. Thus the absence of the Forum of revision may not be a ground for seeking transfer from the Family Court at Meerut. ( 5 ) THE bias alleged against the Judge is not an acceptable one. Other orders of a Family Court, not in the nature of interlocutory orders, are appealable. Thus the absence of the Forum of revision may not be a ground for seeking transfer from the Family Court at Meerut. ( 5 ) THE bias alleged against the Judge is not an acceptable one. The orders quoted in the application indicate that the Family Court had recorded orders against the husband also in the course of the proceedings and he had further recorded orders in favour of the wife applicant on certain dates. The legality or otherwise of any particular order may not be taken as a reflection of any bias in the mind of the Judge in favour of or against any party. It is, however, relevant to opine at this stage that the Family Court is expected to abide by the requirement of Section 9 of the Family Court Act to make efforts for settlement. The allegation that me husband was allowed seat by the Judge in his Chamber may also not be treated as a favour shown to him. The husband happens to be a Senior Officer in the Income Tax Department (not posted at the station) and the offer of a seat could be taken to be a simple courtesy extended to him and it can only be observed that such extension of courtesy should be avoided as the other party may interpret it in another way. ( 6 ) ON the question of convenience of the parties I am only to say that an earlier application for transfer of the case from Kanpur, the High Court had already exercised its jurisdiction and transferred the matter from Kanpur to Meerut. The husband was not employed in Meerut but was posted at Indore. Repeated applications for transfer, till one party gets the desireable Court is not a purpose of Section 24, C. P. C. The allegation of threats are only against unknown persons and it is too much to say mat these unknown persons were men of the husband only. ( 7 ) I find no merit in this application for transfer. It is/however/observed that the trial Judge must not only be impartial but every actions of him indicate his impartiality and he may not, therefore, extend any extra-courtesy to any party unless any extraordinary situation so demanded. ( 7 ) I find no merit in this application for transfer. It is/however/observed that the trial Judge must not only be impartial but every actions of him indicate his impartiality and he may not, therefore, extend any extra-courtesy to any party unless any extraordinary situation so demanded. The judge is also expected to make efforts not only in terms of Section 9 of the Family Court Act but also interim of the order dated 15. 4. 1996 before proceeding with the trial. With these observations the application for transfer stands rejected. .