MALAY KUMAR BASU,J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 407, Cr. P. C. for an order transferring the case being M. R. Case No. 84/94 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar district to that of Jalpaiguri district filed by Subodh Chandra Majumder who is the opposite party/second party in the said M. R. Case (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) whose case is as follows. The petitioner married the opposite party Mina Misra on 29. 5. 1989. Since then they lived peacefully as husband and wife in his house for about 20 days. Then the opposite party came to her father's house never to return. Since thereafter various incidents took place whereby their relationship became strained and untimately the opposite party filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar, whereupon the learned Magistrate issued notice upon this petitioner directing him to show-cause why he should not pay maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. By an order dated 18. 1. 1996, the learned C. J. M. , Cooch Behar was pleased to direct this petitioner to pay ad interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-husband has now filed this application under Section 407, Cr. P. C. for transfer of the case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar to the Judicial Magistrate at Jalpaiguri on the following grounds. First, no cause of action arose in the district of Cooch Behar and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate has no locus standi to entertain his case. Secondly, the petitioner who is a C. R. P. F. Jawan is now posted at Bhopal and if he is to attend the Court at Cooch Behar from Bhopal he will have to come to Jalpaiguri first and therefrom to Cooch Behar and this long journey will be troublesome for him apart from being expensive and time consuming. Thirdly, on previous occasions the petitioner had to attend Court of Cooh Behar when dates for hearing or for appearance were fixed and then the opposite party alongwith her father and some other anti-social elements threatened the petitioner with consequences if he did not concede to the demands of opposite party but contest the case. Thirdly, on previous occasions the petitioner had to attend Court of Cooh Behar when dates for hearing or for appearance were fixed and then the opposite party alongwith her father and some other anti-social elements threatened the petitioner with consequences if he did not concede to the demands of opposite party but contest the case. ( 3 ) THE grounds on which an application for transfer of a case from one Court to another can be made have been provided under Section 407 (i), Cr. P. C. which lays down that wherever it is made to appear to the High Court, (a) that a fair and partial enquiry or trial cannot be had in any Court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order that any particular case or appeal be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Court of equal or superior jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IN the present application nowhere it has been alleged that the petitioner will not get a fair or impartial trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Cooch Behar in question. There is absolutely no such imputation. Although in the prayer portion of the application it has been stated that for the sake of fair trial and other reasons given in the petition the petitioners seek transfer of the case to any Court at Jalpaiguri district, within the four corners of the application there has been no whisper to the effect that the Presiding Officer of the Court in which the case is now pending for hearing has been in any way biased in favour of the opposite party or that the petitioner will not get impartial or fair treatment from the Presiding Officer. Similarly, Clause (b) of Section 407 (i) also is not being attracted here. It is nobody's case that any question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise in course of this proceeding. The only question is whether the provisions of Clause (c) can be applied to the facts of the present case. Similarly, Clause (b) of Section 407 (i) also is not being attracted here. It is nobody's case that any question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise in course of this proceeding. The only question is whether the provisions of Clause (c) can be applied to the facts of the present case. Of the Clause (c) again, the first part is not being attracted here. It is not anybody's contention that an order under this section is required by any other provision of this Code (viz. , Sections 191,352 and 479 ). The second part of Clause C is the law which the petitioner adverse to. Thus the only point for determination will be whether such an order under this section will tend to the general convenience of parties or witnesses or in expedient for the ends of justice. ( 5 ) THE first contention of the petitioner that no cause of action arose at Cooch Behar and hence the Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar had no locus standi to entertain the case is of no avail. According to Section 126 (l) (b) of the Cr. P. C. territorial jurisdiction of the Court may be determined by the present residence of the wife as given in her petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C, irrespective of where the cause of action might have arisen. In that view of the matter, transfer of the case to another Court on this ground will not be permissible. Secondly, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 being employed at Bhotan has to come long way in order to attend the Court on the dates of hearing. This contention is not very impressive for the reason that in any event he had to come to Jalpaiguri from the place of his work. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that the Cooch Behar district is contiguous to the Jalpaiguri district and the distance between Jalpaiguri Court and Cooch Behar Court can be covered by only few hours journey by bus. It should not be forgotten that the other party is the wife of the petitioner and is a female person. The amended Section 126, Cr. PC. has bestow ed upon her the right of having the venue of the proceeding in the District in which she presently resides. It should not be forgotten that the other party is the wife of the petitioner and is a female person. The amended Section 126, Cr. PC. has bestow ed upon her the right of having the venue of the proceeding in the District in which she presently resides. To transfer the case to a Court at Jalpaiguri district will be to deprive her of this privilege frustrating the intention of the Legislature. If comfort is provided to the male party, that will be at the cost of the female party's convenience. If he is allowed to have the Court in the vicinity of his house, the member of the weaker section will be forced to travel a longer distance every time there is a date for hearing. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the expression used in Section 407 (l) (c) of the Code, namely, that the order "will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses" is designed to draw a line between the inconvenience affecting a group of persons in general and that affecting a single person in individual capacity. In the instant case the wife is the 1st party at whose instance the proceeding has been started and she is supposed to have the burden of proving her case with the help of witnesses hailing from her locality. From this point of view also the language of the law seems to be in her favour. ( 6 ) THE third ground raised by the petitioner is that on the previous occasions when the petitioner went to Cooch Behar to attend the Court on the dates of hearing, the opposite party with her father and some anti-social elements threatened him with consequences, if he again attended the Court to contest the case. But I am unable to apply the provisions of Section 407, Cr. P. C. on such a ground. If really any such incident takes place, the remedy lies elsewhere. Transfer of the case to another place on this ground cannot be called for or justified. Such threat has nothing to do with the venue of the proceeding and may occur anywhere irrespective of the place where the Court is situated and it cannot be made a ground for transfer'. Transfer of the case to another place on this ground cannot be called for or justified. Such threat has nothing to do with the venue of the proceeding and may occur anywhere irrespective of the place where the Court is situated and it cannot be made a ground for transfer'. Moreover, such a story unaccompanied by any complaint or Diary while original to have been lodged with the police by the petitioner loses its credibility. ( 7 ) IN this connection, reference may be made to a decision. In this judgment, the Apex Court has cautioned that it would not be a correct principle to apply to the transfer of criminal cases that they should be heard at the place from where the large number of witnesses are to be examined and the normal course of things should not be lightly interfered with and the case should normally be allowed to be tried by the Court having the territorial jurisdiction. ( 8 ) IN view of the above reasons, I am to hold that there will be no justification in transferring the case from Cooch Behar Court to a Court of Jalpaiguri as prayed for. Justice and expediency rather demand that the opposite party being a female person residing at her father's house at Cooch Behar seeking maintenance from the petitioner-husband should not be compelled to attend Court at a distant place in a different district in order to conduct her maintenance-case against the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the result, the application fails and is dismissed without, however, any costs.