ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri R. K. Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs : – “7(i) That the case No. 244/2018 may kindly be listed in any Court except before the learned Series Judge Family Court and Additional Principal Judge Family Court Gwalior. (ii) That, the case No. 244/2018 filed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 may kindly be heard before learned principal Judge Family Court Gwalior or District Judge Gwalior. (iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.” 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 were married on 13-4-2019 at Gwalior and they are blessed with one son. It appears that some dispute arose between the parties and accordingly, the respondents filed an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is being harassed by the petitioner and his family members for demand of dowry and it was also mentioned in the application that the respondent No. 1 has filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which is still pending and the petitioner is posted in Bangalore and he is an engineer by profession and his monthly salary is Rs. 1 lakh and he has a share in the house situated at Gwalior and he has no other liability except the respondents. It was further mentioned that the respondent No. 1 has no source of income and for herself and for her son, she is dependent on her old and infirm parents and accordingly, it was prayed that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- may be awarded for the maintenance of respondent No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- may be awarded for the maintenance of respondent No. 2 and the cost of lis to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- was also claimed. 3. 35,000/- may be awarded for the maintenance of respondent No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- may be awarded for the maintenance of respondent No. 2 and the cost of lis to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- was also claimed. 3. It appears that the respondents filed an application for grant of interim maintenance, however, before the application for grant of interim maintenance could be decided, the petitioner filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for transfer of case from the Court of Hitendra Singh Sisodiya, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior on the ground that he comes from Bangalore to attend the Court proceedings and in spite of that, the respondent No. 1 is not interested in early disposal of the case and with an intention to harass the petitioner, is not cooperating. It appears from the order dated 8-2-2019, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior transferred the case to the Link Court on the ground that since on two occasions, the petitioner had come from Bangalore, therefore, the trial Court should have referred the matter for reconciliation and should not have adjourned it as it has resulted in undue harassment to the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that the application for grant of interim maintenance was allowed. However, the petition which has been filed by the petitioner does not contain the relevant facts. It appears that after the interim maintenance was allowed, the petitioner filed an application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for alteration of maintenance amount and it is alleged that on 29-7-2019 the petitioner was informed that the order on the application filed under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code would be delivered on 20-8-2019 and, therefore, the Advocates of the both parties noted the next date as 20-8-2019. It is further pleaded that however, on 30-7-2019, the record of the case was sent to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court without any prior notice or intimation to the petitioner and on 20-8-2019, when the petitioner appeared before the trial Court, then he was informed that the case has been transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, therefore, he should attend the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior. On 20-8-2019 itself, the petitioner appeared before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior and he was asked to sign the order sheets and accordingly, he obeyed the verbal order and signed the order sheets and he was informed by the Office that the next date of hearing is 26-9-2019. It is further mentioned that because of current situation, the petitioner is under stress and unable to focus on his job hunting and also due to uncertainty of hearing dates, he is unable to travel to other city for appearing in job interview. It is further mentioned that the petitioner collected all the order sheets in order to get the information about the proceedings and after going through the order sheet dated 28-8-2019, the petitioner came to know that the trial Court i.e. Judge, Link Court, Family Court, Gwalior had observed that he does not want to hear the matter and, therefore, a letter may be written to the Principal Judge, Family Court for transfer of the case. Thus, it is submitted that not only the valuable time of the Court was lost but the petitioner has also suffered. It is further submitted that now, the case has been again transferred to the Court of Hitendra Singh Sisodiya, from whose Court, the case was earlier transferred to the Court of Judge, Link Court, Family Court, Gwalior. It is submitted that the petitioner is jobless and currently searching for career opportunities and therefore, early hearing and disposal of the case is necessary. Although the Advocates of both the parties on all the dates had remained present before the Court but the applications have been kept pending for arguments and disposal. On 20-8-2019 when the case was listed before the Link Court, Family Court, Gwalior, again he wrote a letter to the Principal Judge for transfer of the case. When the petitioner came to know about the letter written by the Judge for transfer of the case, he became mentally disturbed because of non-clarity of hearing and arguments and he is unable to focus on his job searching and the trial Court after considering the prayer of the petitioner has not heard the matter and again wrote a letter for transfer of the case. Under these circumstances, this petition has been filed seeking reliefs mentioned above. 4. Similar arguments were advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Under these circumstances, this petition has been filed seeking reliefs mentioned above. 4. Similar arguments were advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was also present in the Court and he also prayed for giving an opportunity of hearing. Shri R. K. Shrivastava, Advocate expressed his no objection in case an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was also heard. 6. It is submitted by the petitioner himself that earlier certain orders were passed by the trial Court mentioning that the petitioner had extended a threat to the Court for committing suicide. It was also submitted by the petitioner himself that he has filed an application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, however, the present Presiding Judge is insisting him to withdraw the said application. It is further submitted that the incorrect order sheets have been mentioned by the earlier Presiding Judge with regard to the incident which took place on 20-8-2019, and in fact, no incident had taken place before the Court on 20-8-2019. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner. 8. The submissions which were made by the petitioner do not find place in the writ petition. Thus, the verbal denial of incidents mentioned in the order sheets about extending a threat of committing suicide or of creating nuisance on 20-8-2019 cannot be considered in absence of any affidavit. Even in the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not uttered a single word disputing the correctness of the order dated 20-8-2019 passed by Shri K. K. Sharma, Judge, Link Court, Family Court, Gwalior. It is submitted by the petitioner that although he has filed an application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code but the same is not being decided. It is also submitted that now, he has come back to Gwalior after tendering his resignation and he wants to plead his case personally. 9. During the course of arguments, it was conceded by the petitioner that the application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code was filed immediately on the next date of passing of order of interim maintenance. Neither the order of interim maintenance has been placed on record nor copy of the application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been placed on record. Neither the order of interim maintenance has been placed on record nor copy of the application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been placed on record. However, during the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by the petitioner that in the application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, he had raised all those objections which he had already taken in his reply to the application for interim maintenance. He fairly conceded that the application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code is not based on any subsequent events. When the petitioner was asked as to whether the application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code was maintainable or not because according to the petitioner himself, the said application is not based on any subsequent events, then he could not give reply to the legal question put by this Court. Since the application under section 127(2) of Criminal Procedure Code is still pending, therefore, this Court is refraining itself from making any observation on the said application but the crux of the matter is that on 20-8-2019 the following order was passed by the trial Court : – 10. The trial Court while observing the conduct of the petitioner had also requested Shri Kapil Sharma, Advocate who was present in the Court to mention about the conduct of the petitioner, who has also written that in the presence of Shri Kapil Sharma, Advocate the petitioner had misbehaved with the Court and challenged that he may be sent to Jail. This observation made by the trial Court has not been disputed by the petitioner either by filing an affidavit or by rebutting the same in the writ petition. Further, it is well-established principle of law that the order sheets are the sacrosanct documents and the facts mentioned in the order sheets should be treated as prima facie true. Thus, it is clear from the order dated 20-8-2019 that the petitioner had appeared before the Presiding Judge and shouted in the Court itself and also challenged the Court for sending him to Jail. Thus, it is clear from the order dated 20-8-2019 that the petitioner had appeared before the Presiding Judge and shouted in the Court itself and also challenged the Court for sending him to Jail. The Presiding Judge instead of taking any action against the petitioner recused himself from hearing the matter and requested the Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior for transfer of the case from his Court and it appears that thereafter, the case was again transferred to the Court of Hitendra Singh Sisodiya, from whose Court earlier the case was transferred. On 20-8-2019, it appears that Shri Hitendra Singh Sisodiya, also observed that earlier the case was transferred from his Court, therefore, it does not appear good for him to hear the matter and again requested the Principal Judge, Family Court for transfer of the case to some other Court. However, it appears that the request made by Hitendra Singh Sisodiya, has not been accepted by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior and now the case is pending in the Court of Hitendra Singh Sisodiya. 11. During the course of argument, it was submitted by the petitioner that earlier also, it was written in the order sheets that the petitioner had threatened the trial Court that he will commit suicide. However, neither this fact has been mentioned in the writ petition nor any document or copy of the order sheets have been filed in that regard. However, allegation of threatening the Court of committing suicide has also not been denied in the writ petition. Therefore, in absence of any material, the Court is not in a position to consider the submission made by the petitioner. However, one thing is clear that the conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be good before the trial Court. 12. Now, the next question for consideration is that whether the trial Court should recuse itself from hearing the matter or should decide the matter without getting adversely affected by the conduct of the litigating parties. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and others by order dated 23rd October, 2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 90369038/2016 has held as under : – “30. The entire judicial system is based on sound constitutional principles. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and others by order dated 23rd October, 2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 90369038/2016 has held as under : – “30. The entire judicial system is based on sound constitutional principles. The roster making power is bestowed on the Chief Justice of India so that litigants are not able to choose the Judges before whom they have to argue a matter, and he is a constitutional functionary who has been enjoined with this task at the highest pedestal to exercise the power of roster making. He is the repository of faith. Once he has exercised his power, it is not for the Judges to choose. As per their oath, they have to discharge their duties without fear and favour and in a dispassionate manner without any ill will, bias towards litigants, or a cause. The question which arises is whether merely delivering a judgment of which correctness is to be examined, would disqualifying a Judge from being part of the larger Bench. The answer to the question has to be in the negative as there is a consistent practice of this Court which has evolved that the Judges who have rendered a decision earlier in smaller combination, have also formed part of the larger Bench, and there are umpteen occasions as mentioned above when Judges have overruled their own view. In LITEKY (supra), the United States Supreme Court has held that rather it may be advantageous to have them on a Bench hearing the matter as judgments are rendered after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. There is always a scope to further develop the law and to correct the errors, and this can better be done by having Judges on the Bench, who have earlier rendered judgments with respect to the subject-matter to which of the parties the view taken suits is not relevant. 31. If requests for recusal are acceded to for the asking, litigants will be unscrupulously taking over the roster making powers of the Chief Justice and that would tantamount to interference with the judicial system, by the mighty to have a particular Bench by employing several means and putting all kinds of pressures from all angles all around. 31. If requests for recusal are acceded to for the asking, litigants will be unscrupulously taking over the roster making powers of the Chief Justice and that would tantamount to interference with the judicial system, by the mighty to have a particular Bench by employing several means and putting all kinds of pressures from all angles all around. It is the test of the ability of the judicial system to withstand such onslaught made from every nook and corner. Any recusal in the circumstances is ruled out, such prayer strengthens the stern determination not to succumb to any such pressure and not to recuse on the ground on which recusal sought because for any reason, such a prayer is permitted, even once, it would tantamount to cowardice and give room to big and mighty to destroy the very judicial system. Moreover, recusal in such unjustified circumstances, would become the norm.” 14. It is well-established principle of law that no litigant can choose that who should be on the Bench. He cannot say to a Judge who might have decided a case on a particular issue. Whenever a litigant approaches the Court for redressal of his grievance, then he must maintain the decorum and no one can be allowed to pressurize the Presiding Judge by creating nuisance in the Court. Whenever a nuisance is created by the litigant in order to pressurize the Presiding Judge, then it is expected that the Presiding Judge instead of recusing himself must tackle the situation with all firmness and in case, if it is required, then he can also initiate proceedings for Contempt of Court. Recusal cannot be the solution to deal with the situation. Whenever the litigant is being represented by his counsel, then it is the duty of the counsel also, to ensure that the litigant maintains the decorum in the Court and in case, if the litigant creates nuisance without permission and knowledge of his counsel, then it is expected that the counsel must discharge himself from the case, otherwise it can be presumed that nuisance which is being created by the litigant is after due permission from the counsel. 15. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner had challenged the authority of the Court by shouting and had also challenged the Court for sending him to jail. 15. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner had challenged the authority of the Court by shouting and had also challenged the Court for sending him to jail. It was the stand of the petitioner that earlier he was coming from Bangalore to attend the Court and, therefore, he was being harassed by his wife by unnecessarily taking adjournment. However, on 20-8-2019, the petitioner had already shifted back to Gwalior after tendering his resignation and, therefore, he cannot take shelter that he had come from Bangalore. 16. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is given an advice that he should maintain the decorum of the Court and should not try to pressurize the Presiding Judge to proceed in accordance with his wishes. It is true that early disposal of the cases is the primary requirement but at the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that unnecessarily filing of frivolous applications, non-cooperation by the Bar and pendency of old cases are also relevant facts which cannot be ignored. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Presiding Judge should decide the matter without coming under any pressure by any of the litigants or their counsel. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for transfer of the case from the trial Court. 17. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.