ORAL JUDGMENT 1. After prolonged pendency at the admission stage and listing of the matter for not less than 46 times, the petition is argued for admission. The petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as well as the provisions of section 407 of Cr.P.C. for "a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction transferring the proceedings arising out of FIR being C.R.No.I-8 of 2007 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli to the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad". Admittedly, the petitioner-wife has lodged complaint dated 09.01.2007 at Amreli against her husband for the alleged offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code while she had already shifted to Gandhinagar. Admittedly, the respondent-husband and the witnesses of the petitioner are residents of Amreli and the complaint registered as C.R.No.8 of 2007 has culminated into Criminal Case No.178 of 2007 in which the proceedings have as yet not even commenced on account of pendency of the present proceedings. 2. The petition was sought to be pressed on the grounds of hardship to the petitioner, poverty, threats and pendency of other proceedings in Ahmedabad. The contention of hardship was based upon the age of the mother of petitioner and sickness of the brother of petitioner who is stated to have been at the last stage of cancer since last three years. Learned counsel Ms.Shah relied upon judgments of this Court in Pritiben Devendrakumar Acharya v. State of Gujarat [2001 (4) GLR 3199], Rajshreeben Dharmendrabhai Patadia v. State of Gujarat [ 2004 (2) GCD 1257 (Guj.) and unreported judgment dated 07.12.2007 in Solanki Alpaben Chetankumar v. State of Gujarat in Special Cri. Application No.1595 of 2007. All these judgments are distinguishable on facts as the relief of transfer of criminal case was granted under the circumstances of extreme poverty and difficulties of the petitioner-women who were alleged to have been subjected to cruelty and litigations pursuant thereto. 3. In the facts of the present case, as pointed out by learned counsel Mr.M.B.Parikh, appearing for respondent-husband, the petitioner is a Ph.D. doctor who married on 30.4.2006 and signed a detailed deed of divorce on 10.7.2006 at the mature age of around 52 years. It was thereafter that complaint dated 09.01.2007 was filed and the criminal case was initiated at Amreli by the petitioner herself. It was thereafter that complaint dated 09.01.2007 was filed and the criminal case was initiated at Amreli by the petitioner herself. Under the circumstances, hardship, poverty or pendency of other proceedings initiated again by the petitioner herself at Ahmedabad could not be a ground for transferring the criminal proceedings. As far as the allegation of threats by the respondent-husband is concerned, there is no material to substantiate that allegation, except a letter written by the petitioner herself and addressed directly to the Registrar of this Court. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that she had stayed with respondent No.2 as wife after the said deed of divorce and the cause of action for criminal case had arisen during the married life of the petitioner. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the present proceedings for transfer of the criminal case and pendency thereof at the admission stage for two years at a huge cost of public time of this Court clearly appeared to be unjustified and an abuse of the process of Court. It was, in fact, at one stage argued by learned counsel Ms.Shah that, as and when the case is fixed for hearing before the criminal Court at Amreli, the petitioner would be required to remain personally present and she may have to apply for exemption from personal attendance, even as admittedly the petitioner was represented by an advocate and there was no occasion so far to make a grievance of unnecessary expenses, hardship or threat from any corner. As against that, it was stated, on instructions, by learned counsel Mr.Parikh that the respondent was ready and willing to co-operate in the earliest practicable conclusion of the criminal case and would not cause any unnecessary adjournment as and when the trial proceeds. 5. The powers of this Court under section 407 of Cr.P.C. to transfer a case could be exercised where such transfer would tend to the general convenience of parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice. None of those requirements are fulfilled in the facts of the present case and, as seen earlier, the petition is found to be frivolous and vexatious. Therefore, it is rejected and Notice is discharged with the direction to pay to respondent No.2, by way of compensation, a sum of Rs.1,000/- as provided in sub-section (7) of section 406 of Cr.P.C.