ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5, praying this Court to withdraw the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.307/2017, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Vijayapura and transfer the same to V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore. (Hereinafter called as ‘C.M.M. Court’). 2. Brief facts leading to the case is that, petitioner No.1/respodent are the husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized on 19-11-2013. After the marriage, because of the difference of opinion, respondent-wife filed a criminal case against petitioner No.1 making allegations regarding ill-treatment and harassment, which ensued in registration of Crime No.382/2016 of Hulimavu Police Station, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 504 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.6947/2016 and the same is pending before the C.M.M. Court. Thereafter, petitioner No.1-husband has also filed a matrimonial case in M.C.No.1908/2016 before the Family Court, Bangalore under Section 3(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce, which is pending for adjudication. It is further contended that, the respondent-wife has also filed a domestic violence case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court-I, Vijayapura, which is also pending. As such, present petition is filed for transferring the said case to C.M.M. Court, Bangalore. 3. I have heard Sri. Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Umesh V. Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that, a case came to be filed by the respondent-wife before the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Vijayapura, for the offence punishable under section 498 (A), 504 of IPC R/w under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, if it is asked to be continued, it is going to cause hardship and inconvenience to the petitioners and most of the witnesses are residents of Bangalore City. He would further contend that even the contents of the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the alleged incident stated to have been taken place are at Bangalore when she was residing at Bangalore. He would further contend that even the contents of the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the alleged incident stated to have been taken place are at Bangalore when she was residing at Bangalore. He would further contend that, when already a criminal case is pending in C.C.No.6947/2016, the allegations in the said case and the domestic violence are one and the same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation and also in order to come to a right conclusion, both the above cases requires to be heard together by a single Judge. He would further contend that, respondent-wife is residing at Bangalore and she is working as a Software Engineer and only with an intention to humiliate the petitioners, respondent filed the domestic violence case at Vijayapura. He would further contend that, the offences alleged against the petitioners’ falls within the jurisdiction of Bangalore and it is convenient for them to attend the Court. On these grounds, prayed for allowing the said petition. 5. Per contra, learned respondent’s counsel vehemently argued and contended that, though earlier respondent was residing at Bangalore, now she has resigned from her job and residing along with her parents at Vijayapura. He would further contend that, as per the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, complaint can be filed where the respondent-wife is residing or where the cause of action has arisen. He would further contend that, respondent has also filed an application for transfer of Matrimonial case, which is pending on the file of Family Courts at Bangalore to Vijayapura Court, as now she is residing at Vijayapura. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the contents of the petition and also carefully gone through the submissions made by either counsel. 7. As could be seen from the records, it is evident that cases filed by both the parties are pending at Bangalore as well as at Vijayapura. It is true that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings both the cases i.e., case filed by respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 504 of IPC as well as complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act alleging domestic violence by petitioners are to be heard and decided by a single Judge. It is true that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings both the cases i.e., case filed by respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 504 of IPC as well as complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act alleging domestic violence by petitioners are to be heard and decided by a single Judge. But, as could be seen from the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 2(I), fixes the jurisdiction, of the Court where the aggrieved person resides temporarily or otherwise or the respondent resides or the domestic violence is alleged to have taken place. As could be seen from the cause-title of present petition, the residential address of the respondent-wife has been shown that, she is resident of Vijayapura. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioners, respondent has filed complaint under Domestic Violence Act, under such circumstances as per the said provision of the law, the respondent is justified in filing the said complaint before the Court at Vijayapura. 8. Be that as it may. Now, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that, now she has resigned from her job and now she is residing along with her parents at Vijayapura. She has also filed an application for transfer of the case pending in the Family Court to get transferred from Bangalore to Vijayapur, under such circumstances it is not just and proper to transfer the present case to Bangalore. If it is going to cause inconvenience to the parties for the purpose of appearance, such of those parties can file exemption application before the trial Court, before which Court they wants to exempt their appearance. In this behalf also there, is no justification to transfer the case Crl.Misc.No.307/2017, pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Vijayapura to Bangalore. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the petition stands disposed of.