HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P. No. 10139 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is husband of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed maintenance case in MC No.1155 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam claiming maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and it is pending in that court. 2. The only contention urged by the petitioner’s counsel before this court is that the petitioner married one Vijaya Bharathi as his wife originally and that his marriage with Vijaya Bharathi is subsisting and that though he filed OP No.132 of 1995 in Family Court Visakhapatnam against Vijaya Bharathi claiming divorce from her, the lower court dismissed that petition and that marriage of the petitioner if any with the 2nd respondent is bigamous marriage and is void in view of Sections 5(1) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that therefore, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav [1] of the Supreme Court in support of the preposition that a bigamous wife whose marriage is void, is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner also raised the above objection in MC No.1155 of 2009 in the lower court in his counter. So, it is for the lower court to decide the said dispute in the pending maintenance case. Plea of the petitioner/husband on this aspect is a mixed question of fact and law and is not a pure question of law. The 2nd respondent is not a party to OP No.132 of 1995; but at the same time, the order in O.P No.132 of 1995 is certainly a relevant piece of evidence, in support of the petitioner’s case. 3. Therefore, facts relating to the petitioner’s marriage with Vijaya Bharathi and about the Proceedings in OP No.132 of 1995 and order for payment of maintenance to Vijaya Bharathi and her two children have to be proved by the petitioner as against the 2nd respondent during enquiry of MC No.1155 of 2009. On that basis the pending maintenance case in the lower court cannot be quashed as disputed questions of fact are involved herein. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the lower court is directed to dispose of MC No. 1155 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three (3) months. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 01-10-2010 Mjl/* [1] 1988 Crl.L.J. 793 = AIR 1988 Supreme Court 644