JUDGMENT RAVI S. DHAVAN 1. Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui was facing maintenance proceedings initiated by his wife Smt Shayista Begum on the allegation that he had turned her out, leaving her with no choice except to go to her parents' house with one girl and a baby in her womb. The allegation of Shayista Begum is also that Mohd Khalil Siddiqui has married, apart from the marriage with her, two other marriages. 2. When the Judge, Family Court summoned Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui to appear before him on the petition for maintenance initiated by his wife, he chose to file the present habeas corpus petition as a counterblast to the proceedings under section 125 CrPC 1973. In the counter affidavit Shayasta Begam complained that her husband would neither pay her maintenance nor would appear before the Judge, Family Court for consideration of her maintenance. Thus, this court passed an order on 14 May 1990 requiring the husband, Mohd. Khalil Siddiquii, petitioner before this Court, that he will appear before the Judge, Family Court on a certain date and submit whatever he desires to say should he elect to contest proceedings on maintenance This court had also required the Judge, Family Court that after he has rendered a decision, a certified copy of his judgment be sent to this Court. The order of the Judge, Family Court granting maintenance to Shayasta Begam dated 11 July 1990 is available to the Court. 3. The Judge, Family Court records in his order of 11 July 1990 that Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui was uncooperative as he either sought adjournments or would not appear on the dates fixed. The Family Court noticed that after having given adequate opportunity to Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui to participate in the proceedings, the Court was constrained to proceed in his absence. 4. The Court records that Shayasta, Begam was turned out of her husband's house, while she was carrying a, child in her womb and another. Mohd Vakil was of a tender age. The Judge, Family Court has given reasons why he is granting maintenance as also the quantum of the maintenance. The Family Court has also noticed that amidst proceedings before that Court Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui chose to file a habeas corpus petition before the High Court for the sole purpose of inhibiting the Family Court from proceeding further. The Judge, Family Court has given reasons why he is granting maintenance as also the quantum of the maintenance. The Family Court has also noticed that amidst proceedings before that Court Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui chose to file a habeas corpus petition before the High Court for the sole purpose of inhibiting the Family Court from proceeding further. The present habeas corpus petition was only a reaction to the proceedings initiated before the Family Court by Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui's wife as a counter measure to evade the proceedings before the Family Court and not permit the order on the payment of maintenance to be implemented. He chose to carve out a story that his two children had been illegally detained or taken away by his wife This fact turned out to be otherwise and incorrect, The wife was complaining of being kicked out of her husband's house and under the circumstances being required to maintain the two children and herself, clearly, this habeas corpus petition is an abuse of the process of the court. In the counter affidavit, Shayasta Begam complains of Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui having married twice apart from the marriage with her. This court is not going into this aspect of the matter as what is relevant in the proceedings before this court is that a writ of habeas corpus must not be misutilised or abused. In the present case this writ cannot be utilised to nullify or stall proceedings for maintenance by the husband who will neither appear before the Family Court nor participate in the proceedings before that Court. Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui again complains that he did not have an opportunity to resist proceedings for maintenance brought by his wife The Family Court records that he deliberately chose to keep away from the proceedings for maintenance intitated by his wife Shayasta Begam. 5. Learned counsel for Shyasta Begam informs the court that he has now filed an application seeking recall of the exparte order when all along he bad been evading appearance on the dates fixed by the family court. 6. Let the order of the Family Court on maintenance granted to the woman who has been turned out by her husband and otherwise obliged to maintain his children not be evaded or defeated so easily. This, the Family Court will ensure that its order of 11 July 1990 is complied with by Mohd. 6. Let the order of the Family Court on maintenance granted to the woman who has been turned out by her husband and otherwise obliged to maintain his children not be evaded or defeated so easily. This, the Family Court will ensure that its order of 11 July 1990 is complied with by Mohd. Khalil Siddiqui so that the purpose of the Family Court and it's proceeding is not frustrated. Merely granting maintenance is not sufficient. The court is obliged to secure it for the woman and the children, as the case may be. On the application which may remain pending seeking recall of the exparte order, this court is making no comments and leaves it to the Family Court to consider the bonafides of such an application and pass whatever may be appropriate orders, as may be just. If tie bonafides are not established, the court below will consider and award mitigating costs. The present habeas corpus petition, the court has already reflected on the facts on record is an abuse of the process of the court and is dismissed with costs, standing at Rs. 250/- which costs will be realised by the Family Court, before considering recall (of the order dated 11 July, 1990. If these costs are not paid, the ex-parte order of the court below will become absolute and thereafter proceedings to secure it's implementation will be taken out by the Family Court. 7. Dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.