3f\ @ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 5ILAS?UR Cr.M.P.No.828 3f 2m 0 Petitioner [Mukhtiyar Eingh 5J0 Smi Karen Sing'n! aged abcu’t 45 yearg. R’s Qua:ter No.3/D. Street No.65 Seam-6, Bhi§ai Hagar, Tahsii and District Durg (CG). Versus Harginder Kaur W/o Buta $ing‘n (wrongly mentianed Mukhtiyar Singh), aged 33 years, Rio Shanti Nagar Bhiiai, Tahsii and District Durg (CG). Resgondent (Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hcn’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, .1} Present: Mr.Awadh Tripathi with MLSanjeev Banjare, counsei for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Pa5sed on 13m January, 201 1) By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C‘, the petitioner has prayed for 1. quashment of criminai proceeding for maintenance tiied on behalf of the respondent before the Principal Judge, Famiiy Court, Durg in Misc.Criminai Case No.693/2009. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the respondent i5 not iegatiy weeded wife of the petitioner, he has fiied sufflcient documents to prove the afotesaid fact and has filed petition for dismissal of appiioation tiled under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., but the Principei Judge, Family Court, Durg has dismissed petition vide order dated 6.10.2910. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of relationship of husband and wife, continuance of proceeding for maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg wouid only be abuse of process of the Court. l have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the petition and documents appended thereto. From perusal of the documents, it appears that the respondent has filed petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the petitioner on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. By replying the petition and fiiing the application, the petitioner has challenged relationship and has tiled some documents. The petitioner is required to prove the aforesaid documents and the fact that the respondent is not legally wedded wifeof the petitioner. The respondent is alsa required to prove the fact that the petmoner is her legaliy husband and she is entitled for maintenance. Uniess and uniii the aforesaid facts are proved, continuance cf proceedin not be abuse of process of the Court. 5. Consequently, l do not iind any merit in this petition. The petition bei of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. g far maintenance would Sdl‘ T.P. Sharma judge og devoid