V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition u/ S. 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 7-3-1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dewas, in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1987, thereby partly allowing the petition and modifying operation of the order passed by the trial Court, making it operative from the date on which the order was passed rather than the date of application. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come up before this Court u/ S. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) A mere reading of the Section would go to show that the inherent powers of the Court can be invoked only in three situations indicated therein, namely : (1) in order to give effect to an order passed under the Code, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the Court, and (3) to secure the ends of justice. None of these objects can be served by interfering with the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE only point raised is about validity of the marriage. Shri Dave contended that the basic requirement for invoking S. 125, Cr. P. C. by the respondent was not fulfilled, inasmuch as she failed to prove that she was the married wife of the petitioner. This point was also raised before the lower revisional Court. The Supreme Court has in Sumitradevi v. Bhikan (1985) 1 SCC 637 : (1985 Cri LJ 528) and in Smt. Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644 : (1988 Cri LJ 793) has considered the applicability of personal law in matters relating to grant of maintenance allowance u/s. 125, Cr. P. C. and it cannot be allowed to stretch to such an extent as to defeat the very purpose of the provision of law, which is essentially made to prevent vagrancy amongst woman and children. Going through the impugned order it is also evident that a customary divorce, known as Chhod Chitti had taken place between Kamlabai and her first husband Tikamchand, who again admitted that this kind of divorce was recognised by the community to which they belong. ( 4 ) WITHOUT entering into the legalism suffice it to note that so far as the applicant's marriage with Kamlabai was concerned, it was duly established and was not disputed on any count. ( 4 ) WITHOUT entering into the legalism suffice it to note that so far as the applicant's marriage with Kamlabai was concerned, it was duly established and was not disputed on any count. In the circumstances, the order passed against the petitioner does not call for any interference, that too by invoking the inherent powers of this Court u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, this petition stands dismissed, without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .