ORDER : Petitioners are the respondents in OP No.1054/2016 of the Family court, Pathanamthitta filed by the respondent/wife herein, claiming return of gold ornaments and patrimony. The parties are referred to hereinafter as petitioners and respondents in accordance with their status before this court. 2. The first petitioner herein had married the respondent on 8/9/2013. Matrimonial relationship became strained in the course of time, leading to the filing of O.P.No.1054/2016 by the wife before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. Petitioners herein appeared before the court below and filed their objections. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the respondent and the 4th petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent. 3. According to the petitioners, on 1-4-2019, when the case stood posted for trial, the learned Family Court Judge made a suggestion for settlement of disputes and directed both the lawyers to interact and to try to arrive at an amicable settlement. Both sides agreed to make earnest efforts for amicable settlement of the dispute. When the case was taken up at the regular hearing, it was informed that the case will be called in the chamber of the learned Judge. Accordingly, both sides with their respective lawyers appeared in the chamber of the judge. The Judge advised that it would be better if the matter is settled and otherwise the proceedings would get delayed. The parties against whom the case is decided would take up the matter in appeal and the parties would have to spent a huge amount for the prolonged litigation. It is alleged that, the learned Judge thereafter stated that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners herein and showed a photograph which was marked in the Chief examination affidavit as Ext.A9 series. The learned judge stated that there is a document evidencing purchase of gold ornaments and therefore it is better that the case is settled. According to the petitioners, the learned Judge made statement regarding the documents produced by the respondent, as if they were legally acceptable evidence and that would prove the case of the respondent. Consequently, petitioners were constrained to make a suggestion to give a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-in full and final settlement of the dispute. The lawyer appearing for the respondent made a demand for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The learned Judge required the second petitioner to enhance the offer to a considerable extent. Consequently, petitioners were constrained to make a suggestion to give a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-in full and final settlement of the dispute. The lawyer appearing for the respondent made a demand for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The learned Judge required the second petitioner to enhance the offer to a considerable extent. After discussion, the case was adjourned to another date to carry forward the talks and to reach a settlement. On 26/4/2019, it was informed by the petitioners that the dispute was settled for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. At that point of time, respondent's lawyer made a submission that respondent requires an amount of Rs.50,000/-more for settling the dispute. Since this was more than the agreed amount, petitioners were not agreeable. Thereafter, learned judge suggested that the petitioners pay a further amount of Rs.25,000/-. Petitioners' lawyer submitted that it is not a matter of payment of Rs.25,000/-and even if the demand was for payment of one rupee over and above the amount mutually agreed upon, it was unfair, improper and unjustifiable. Learned Judge thereupon allegedly stated that 1st petitioner will be the loser if the matter is not settled and that the first petitioner would be sent to jail. 4. Contending that, in the light of the above facts, petitioners seriously apprehend that the judge was pre judged and that the petitioners may not get justice from the court, they sought transfer of the case to Family Court, Thiruvalla or to any other Family Court in Kerala. It was alleged that the petitioners cannot expect any fairness, if the trial is held before the above learned judge. 5. After appearance of the respondent, comments were called from the court below regarding the various allegations made in the application. The learned Judge of the Family Court in his detailed communication dated 31/5/2019 has informed that he has no personal acquaintance with the parties to the proceedings and their lawyers. It was informed that he had taken up the initiative for a chamber talk for settlement of the dispute. According to the Judge, counsel on both sides had represented that the matter was likely to be settled and a chamber talk would help the parties to arrive an amicable settlement of disputes. Chamber talk was conducted in the presence of both the parties and their counsel. According to the Judge, counsel on both sides had represented that the matter was likely to be settled and a chamber talk would help the parties to arrive an amicable settlement of disputes. Chamber talk was conducted in the presence of both the parties and their counsel. At first, the judge enquired about the scope for re-union for which the parties did not give any positive reply. The judge advised both parties to settle the disputes, if possible, in order to avoid prolonged litigation and the connected expenses. Learned Judge asserted that, he had not made any suggestion to both parties regarding the terms of settlement. Learned Judge denied the allegation that he made a comment that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioners, that there was document evidencing purchase of the gold ornaments and hence it would be better to settle the case. The further allegation that he had suggested to give an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-towards the full and final settlement of the dispute, was also denied. Counsel for the wife had suggested that his client was ready to settle the entire dispute for Rs.10,00,000/-, in addition to the arrears of maintenance. The judge asserted that, he never enquired about the terms of settlement and did not make any comment as to how the matter was to be settled. 6. On 26/4/2019, when the case was called, counsel for the husband submitted that dispute was settled for Rs.7,50,000/-in full and final settlement of all claims. This offer was opposed by the learned counsel for the wife. He submitted that now there was only a small difference of Rs.50,000/-. Then the judge made a suggestion to both parties to suffer the difference equally, if possible. According to judge, the allegation that he had directed the husband and in-laws to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/-more and that the opposite side would be satisfied by that additional amount was incorrect. Learned Judge stated that since the parties were adamant in their stands, he only suggested to the parties that they may go for trial and case will be decided on merits. Further allegation that, he had made a comment that the first petitioner would be sent to jail, was also not correct. 7. Respondent though appeared, did not file any objection, clarifying her version. Further allegation that, he had made a comment that the first petitioner would be sent to jail, was also not correct. 7. Respondent though appeared, did not file any objection, clarifying her version. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the above facts indicated that the court below had gone into the merits of the case and made comments which were sufficient to show that learned judge was acting in a biased manner and had pre judged the entire issue. It was contended that the petitioners believed that they will not get justice in the above circumstances. 8. To substantiate the prayer, learned cousel for the petitioners relied on the decisions reported in M.N.Divakaran v. State (1986 KHC 117) and Renu Alex v. Alexander Muthalali ( 2012 (2) KHC 717 ). In the former case, transfer of a criminal case was sought on the ground that the Magistrate was having some pre-conceived notion gathered from his experience in the trial of other identical cases and carried forward that impression, while conducting the trial of the present case also. Analysing the above fact, Division Bench of this Court held that it was an accepted legal proposition that bias need not be actual. If there was reasonable basis to suggest the appearance of bias to a reasonable mind, it was sufficient for transfer. It was held that the essence of the judicial decisions and judicial administration was that judge should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. The test was not whether in fact bias has affected the decision, and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that bias might have operated. However, on facts, the court held that mere apprehension entertained by an accused was not sufficient to form the basis for transfer. 9. In Renu Alex's case(supra), matrimonial matter was sought to be transferred on the ground that there was bias or prejudice on the part of the court, that amounted to denial of justice. In an earlier maintenance claim, pursuant to the conciliatory steps taken, the wife had joined the husband with children. However such re-union was short lived and later she filed a petition before the Magistrate court invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In an earlier maintenance claim, pursuant to the conciliatory steps taken, the wife had joined the husband with children. However such re-union was short lived and later she filed a petition before the Magistrate court invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. According to her, this infuriated the learned Judge of the Family Court who dismissed her maintenance claim, without even a counter being filed by the respondent. The order of dismissal was reversed in revision moved by the wife. In the light of what had transpired earlier, petitioner apprehended unfair treatment in the subsequent case filed by the wife for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. Hence, she sought transfer of the case. This court noticed that proceedings initiated by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act had infuriated the learned Judge and without going into the details of the case, judge simply dismissed the petition. On going through the order, this Court had found that it was extremely difficult to justify the order passed by the trial court. It did not contain any acceptable reason and the reasons given were faulty. The reasons given to reject the claim made by the petitioner were not at all legally sustainable. In this background, this Court held that, to seek transfer on the ground that there was bias or prejudice on the part of the court, concrete proof to substantiate such apprehension cannot be insisted upon. 10. In an identical situation, reported in Balachandran v Meena ( 1999 (1) KLJ 940 ), this court had occasion to consider the request for transfer of proceedings from one Family court to another on the ground that the judge was hostile. This court rejected the application on the premise that the Family Court Act constitutes the Judge to some extent also as a conciliator of the dispute. In that process, the Judge is forced to talk to the parties and try to bring them together. That role of the Judge, is totally different from the judicial role he will assume, when he is finally forced to decide the lis between the spouses on merits. Transfer of the proceedings from one Family Court to another on such allegations would be counter productive and would not achieve the object sought to be achieved by the Family Courts Act, it was held. 11. Transfer of the proceedings from one Family Court to another on such allegations would be counter productive and would not achieve the object sought to be achieved by the Family Courts Act, it was held. 11. The above decisions lay down the parameters for granting transfer of a case. However, it is pertinent to note that, Order 32A Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure imposes a duty on the courts to make every effort for settlement of disputes in family matters. Under section 9 of the Family Court Act also, a solemn duty is imposed on the family court to make efforts for settlement. It provides that, in every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so, consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court, may, subject to any Rules made by the High Court, follow such procedure as it may deem fit. 12. This court in Bini v. Sundaran K.V.( 2008(1) KHC 209 ) had held that after the introduction of the Family Courts Act, Family Court is bound to make endeavour for reconciliation and settlement. The Honourble Supreme Court, in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh ( (2018) 1 SCC 62 ), held that the principal thrust of the law in family matters is to make an attempt for reconciliation before processing the disputes in the legal frame work. Analyzing the subtle differences between conciliation, reconciliation and mediation, the Supreme Court held; “Reconciliation is not mediation. Neither is it conciliation. No doubt, there is conciliation in reconciliation. But the concepts are totally different. Similarly, there is mediation in conciliation, but there is no conciliation in mediation. In mediation, the role of the mediator is only to evolve solutions whereas in reconciliation, the duty-holders have to take a proactive role to assist the parties to reach an amicable solution . In conciliation, the conciliator persuades the parties to arrive at a solution as suggested by him in the course of the discussions. In mediation, the role of the mediator is only to evolve solutions whereas in reconciliation, the duty-holders have to take a proactive role to assist the parties to reach an amicable solution . In conciliation, the conciliator persuades the parties to arrive at a solution as suggested by him in the course of the discussions. In reconciliation, as already noted above, the duty-holders remind the parties of the essential family values, the need to maintain a cordial relationship, both in the interest of the husband and wife or the children, as the case may be, and also make a persuasive effort to make the parties reconcile to the reality and restore the relationship, if possible. The Family Courts Act expects the duty-holders like the court, counsellors, welfare experts and any other collaborators to make efforts for reconciliation. However, reconciliation is not always the restoration of status quo ante; it can as well be a solution as acceptable to both parties. In all these matters, the approaches are different.” 13. The above was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Anu Bhandari v. Pradip Bhandari ( (2018)6 SCC 389 ) at para 13, by holding that: “Under section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Court has a duty to make an endeavour to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement. Unlike many other legislations, the legislature has cast a duty on the court in the regard. The jurisdiction is not just to decide a dispute, on the contrary, the court also has to involve itself in the process of conciliation/mediation between the parties for assisting them not only to settle the disputes but also to secure speedy settlement of disputes. Such timely intervention of the court will not only resolve the disputes and settle the parties peacefully but also prevent sporadic litigations between the parties.” 14. The statute and the decisions envisage a pivotal role for the courts dealing with adjudication of matrimonial disputes. Though the Family Courts Act 1984, and Order 32A of CPC 1908 casts mandatory obligation on the courts to make efforts for settlement, it does not prescribe the limits to which this effort can extend. This assumes significance since, in case of failure of attempts for reconciliation, the Court will be called upon to adjudicate the dispute on merits, after recording evidence. This assumes significance since, in case of failure of attempts for reconciliation, the Court will be called upon to adjudicate the dispute on merits, after recording evidence. Any bona fide attempt of the Court to get involved in the dispute beyond a limit, while attempting to resolve the dispute amicably, is likely to be interpreted, rightly or with oblique motive, by either of parties, as partisan or prejudicial approach from the part of court, as had happened in this case. 15. Definitely, the initiative taken in this case by the judge, for an amicable settlement of the dispute cannot be found fault with. However, the dispute relates to what transpired inside the chamber of the judge. It appears from the facts of the case that the allegation is not regarding the initiative taken by the judge. The main allegations are that, the learned Judge in the course of discussion, directed the parties to settle the dispute for a fixed amount and that he made certain comments touching upon the merits of the case. Definitely, the above allegations are stoutly denied by the learned Judge. The facts disclose that the judge has taken initiative in the reconciliation process and had made some positive suggestions. Allegation that the judge had made some specific suggestions and had made comments adverse to the interest of the petitioners herein is also stoutly denied. 16. As mentioned above, section 9 of the Family Courts Act imposes a solemn duty on the Family Court to make efforts for settlement of matrimonial disputes, which are very sensitive and affects not only the parties to the matrimonial dispute, but the family members, relatives and the children. Attempt for settlement is definitely for an amicable settlement of disputes by way of reunion at the first instance and only in case of failure, for separation on mutually accepted terms. Though Section 9 imposes an onerous duty on the court to initiate process of settlement, the Law does not prescribe the extent to which such efforts can be taken forward by the court. It only says that, the judge can do so, consistent with the “nature and circumstances of the case” and for that, he can follow such procedure as he may think fit and proper. When the Judge deals with the dispute as a conciliator, he will have to directly interact with both parties in the chamber. It only says that, the judge can do so, consistent with the “nature and circumstances of the case” and for that, he can follow such procedure as he may think fit and proper. When the Judge deals with the dispute as a conciliator, he will have to directly interact with both parties in the chamber. In the course of such attempt, definitely the judge may have to express some views, may persuade the parties to express their respective opinion and in the course of such discussion it is very likely that factual scenario may be disclosed and the underlying interest of the parties may also be exposed unintentionaly. There is a further possibility that he may have to open up and make few bona fide comments or observations, which may be closely linked to the facts of the dispute, but are likely to be misunderstood by the parties, if the settlement does not take place. In case the attempt for settlement initiated by the learned judge fails, that may tend to create an unwarranted impression in the minds of some parties as it happened in this case. 17. This calls for striking a perfect balance between the obligation of the Judge to be an effective settler of dispute and to maintain the impartiality of an eventual adjudicator. Hence, it may be advisable that the judge, while exercising his duties under section 9 impress upon both parties the advantages of settlement and disadvantages of long drawn litigation and try to assist the parties and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement of the dispute. If parties arrive at a settlement, the settlement can be accepted by the learned Judge. Wherever judge feels that highly contentious emotional issues are involved, or he feels that he may have to delve more into the depth of dispute, touching on the merits, it will always be better to refer parties to the mediation at that stage, rather than he himself further adorning the role of conciliator/mediator. Hence, duty cast on the judge under section 9, reconciled with the duty of the Judge to refer for mediation as held by the Supreme Court, implies that the Judge shall initiate the parties into a settlement mood and his role shall not be one involving resolution of contentious facts, in the process of reconciliation or settlement. 18. Hence, duty cast on the judge under section 9, reconciled with the duty of the Judge to refer for mediation as held by the Supreme Court, implies that the Judge shall initiate the parties into a settlement mood and his role shall not be one involving resolution of contentious facts, in the process of reconciliation or settlement. 18. Having considered the entire facts of this case, I feel that apprehension raised by the petitioners does not appear to be substantiated. Whether the Judge has overstepped the role has to be appreciated from the angle that Judge was guided by his anxiety to have an amicable settlement of the issues. If the case is transferred on that apprehension of the petitioners alone, it may cause inconvenience to the respondent. Hence, I am inclined to direct that the recording of all further evidence shall be done by an advocate commissioner appointed by the Family Court, at the expense of party letting evidence. However, if both sides agree that any particular witness/witnesses can be examined in Court, the Court may examine such witness in Court. The remuneration payable by each party shall be fixed by the Court. The Court will also be free to consider all interlocutory applications. Thereafter, final hearing shall be conducted by the court on the basis of evidence let in. 19. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the transfer petition, however, making it clear that I have not made any observation regarding the rival contentions set up by the parties. The learned Family Judge shall try to ensure that proceedings before that court progress in a free and fair manner and justice should not only be done, but seen to be done. As a last attempt, on the next date of posting, the Court shall ascertain whether the parties are ready for mediation, and if they are ready, they may be referred for mediation. Transfer petition is disposed of as above.