JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. Salim Khan applicant, who is the husband of Smt. Parveen Khatoon, opposite party, prays for quashing the proceedings u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure in case No. 35 of 1979, Smt. Parveen Khatoon v. Salim Khan Criminal Procedure in case No. 35 of 1979, pending in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. The relevant facts in brief are these. Smt. Parveen Khatoon, the opposite party, filed an application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for the award of maintenance, against her husband Salim Khan, the present applicant. Salim Khan put in appearance in those proceedings and moved an application on 21-12-1979, saying that he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against Parveen Khatoon in the Court of the Special Judge, First Class, Delhi and the same had been decreed against her on 9th August, 1979. In view of the findings recorded in that judgment, the application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure was liable to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate did not dispose of this application and passed an order on the margin which reads K. W. file. After this the husband filed this application in September, 1980 and prayed for quashing of the proceedings u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Parveen Khatoon, opposite party, was served, but has not cared to appear and contest this case. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant Salim Khan at some length. The certified copy of the judgment dated 9th August, 1979 of the court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi shows that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Salim Khan was decreed against the wife Parveen Bano with exparte costs. The learned Sub Judge held that Parveen Bano had refused to return to her matrimonial home and there was nothing to show that she was justified in refusing to cohabit with the Plaintiff as husband and wife. He further held that desertion of the Plaintiff by Smt. Parveen Bano, Defendant No. 1 was without just and sufficient cause, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. He further held that desertion of the Plaintiff by Smt. Parveen Bano, Defendant No. 1 was without just and sufficient cause, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. The learned Counsel has contended that in view of these clear findings recorded by the Sub-Judge, Delhi, it cannot be said that applicant (husband) is neglecting or refusing to maintain the wife, and, therefore, the proceedings u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure are misconceived and not maintainable. In this connection the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in Dhani Ram v. Parvati 1980 ACR 8 . 6. In reply to my enquiry the learned Counsel for the applicant has informed me that the exparte decree dated 9-8-79 is still subsisting, and is being put to execution. He has added that Smt. Parveen Khatoon opposite party has not made any application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and judgment dated 9-8-79 and no application for restoration of the suit is pending. 7. The opposite party came to know about the existence of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 9-8-79 at least on 21st December, 1979 when the application for dismissing the proceedings u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was made. Since then she had ample time to move application before the Delhi Court to get the exparte judgment and decree set aside. 8. I have perused the application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure moved by Smt. Parveen on 4-7-78. The sum and substance of this application is that the husband had turned her out of his house after mal-treating her and, therefore, she had no option but to live with her brothers. Her mother was a widow and unable to support her. Thus, this application of Smt. Parveen raised the question whether the husband had forced her out of his house and neglected and refused to maintain her or it was she herself who was keeping away from her husband. The clear-cut finding of the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi has been set out earlier and it is to the effect that the wife was not justified in refusing to cohabit with the husband and her desertion of the husband was without just and sufficient cause. 9. Dhani Ram's decision (supra) goes to support the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant. 9. Dhani Ram's decision (supra) goes to support the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant. In view of the clear cut findings of learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, it cannot be said that the applicant (husband) had neglected or refused to maintain the wife; if she is living away from him and thus, made it impossible for him to maintain her, she cannot complain on that score. In these circumstances the continuance of the proceedings u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure will be an abuse of the process of Court and the same should not be allowed to continue. 10. In the result, the application succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure are quashed.