Judgment :- 1. This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here-in-after referred to as 'the Code', for a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, to stay all further proceedings in M.C. 50/84 on his file till the disposal of O.S. 1012/84 pending before the Munsiff's court, Trichur, and to set aside an order passed by the Magistrate dismissing an application for stay. 2. First respondent, claiming to be the wife of the petitioner, filed M.C. 50/84 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur for maintenance under S.125 of the Code. On receipt of notice, the petitioner moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate for stay of the maintenance case contending that she is not his legally wedded wife and stating that he has already filed O.S. 1012 of 1984 before the Munsiff's court, Trichur for a declaration that the alleged contract of marriage relied on in M.C. 50/84 is vitiated by fraud and other circumstances That petition was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling stay of proceedings. The petitioner took up the matter in Crl. R P. 2/85 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur. By order dated 10-6-1985, the Sessions Judge considered the revision on the merits and dismissed the same. It is in this background that the present petition under S.482 of the Code was filed. 3. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied on the decision in Vasu Vydier v. State of Kerala (1974 K.L.T. 24) wherein it was observed: "Stay of trial of a Criminal case can be granted pending disposal of the civil suit between the same parties on the same subject matter in suitable cases where facts and circumstances show the stay to be necessary to avoid any embarrassment in the conduct of the criminal proceedings. But, there is no hard and fast rule that criminal proceedings should always be stayed pending disposal of a connected civil suit. But, there is no hard and fast rule that criminal proceedings should always be stayed pending disposal of a connected civil suit. From the facts of the present case it is fairly clear that though the approach of the criminal court and the civil court may differ from one another, the facts to be proved in both the cases are almost the same, as in either case it has relation to the extent of performance of the contract of repairs undertaken by the first accused and for which either he had received the payment or had demanded payment on certificates granted by the second accused. In as much as the proceedings before the criminal court has not yet begun and the suit in the civil courts are ripe for trial there could be no harm in adjourning the criminal proceedings giving a reasonable time to see that the proceedings in the civil courts are over before the trial in the criminal court begins." 4. I do not think that the above-said decision will in any way help the petitioner in persuading this court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for the purpose of granting the reliefs prayed for. Inherent jurisdiction of the court is intended to be exercised in the absence of other provisions for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of court or otherwise securing ends of justice. I was not able to find the existence of any such circumstance pursuading this court or justifying the intervention of this court by the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 5. It is true that the petitioner has filed a civil suit. In that civil suit the validity of the marriage contract and the status of the first respondent as wife may be matters in controversy to be decided on the merits. The pendency of such a civil suit need not necessarily operate as a stay against invoking the provisions of S.125 of the Code. S.125 was inserted in the amended Code by way of public policy and the ultimate object is social justice. The provision is intended to avoid vagrancy by providing a speedy remedy by a summary procedure. Simply on account of the pendency of a civil suit, it is not necessary that the criminal court should suspend the relief that is available to a lady under S.125 of the Code. The provision is intended to avoid vagrancy by providing a speedy remedy by a summary procedure. Simply on account of the pendency of a civil suit, it is not necessary that the criminal court should suspend the relief that is available to a lady under S.125 of the Code. In a proceeding under S.125 of the Code also the Magistrate will be awarding maintenance only after taking evidence and after considering the rival contentions and that too only if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the relief. Further there is the provision under S.127(2) of the Code for cancellation of the order for maintenance under S.125 in consequence of any decision by a competent civil court. Under such circumstances refusal on the part of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge to allow the prayer of the petitioner to stay the maintenance proceedings cannot be said to be abuse of process of court which resulted in failure of justice. 6. Simply on account of the pendency of civil suit in which marital relationship is in dispute, the Criminal court is not bound to stay the proceedings for maintenance. It is true that an order for maintenance under S.125 will be subject to the final result of a decision by a competent civil court. But that does not mean that whenever there is a civil litigation challenging the marriage or the marital status, a proceeding under S.125 of the Code has to be inevitably, stayed. If that be so, the object of the provisions contained in S.125 could be defeated by any person against whom the order under S.125 is proposed to be made by instituting a civil suit and getting it protracted for years. If the pendency of a civil suit alone is taken as the criterion for deciding whether a maintenance proceeding should continue or not, it will definitely work hardship against the dependants mentioned in S.125 and they may not be able to enforce the duty provided under S.125 against a person who is bound to pay for maintenance. The question whether stay has to be granted or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The question whether stay has to be granted or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the petitioner was not able to satisfy me that there was any question of abuse of process of court or failure of justice involved in the refusal of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge to grant the stay prayed for by him. If ultimately his suit succeeds, he can have the remedy provided under S.127 (2). I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition, is therefore, dismissed. Dismissed.