JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State/Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the impugned notice issued under section III of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking the petitioner to show cause why the order should not be passed against him under section 110(e) and (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the dispute is pending between the Petitioner and his wife and as a result of same, the said complaint has been filed by the wife against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under section 498-A and also under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping his own son. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as long as it is not established that the Petitioner is habitual offender, show cause notice under section III of Code of Criminal Procedure based on accusation of the charges which are not yet proved cannot be issued against him by the Respondent. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Lalookhan Haideralikhan Vs. M. M. Kamble, Special Executive Magistrate, Byculla division, Bombay and others, reported in 1996 Cr.L.J. 801. 4. It is an admitted position that, Petitioner has not been convicted for the offences allegedly committed and as such it cannot be said that he is habitual offender. Apart from above, this is a dispute essentially between husband and wife and as such taking into consideration the said dispute, show cause notice in my view could not have been issued against the Petitioner. The ratio of the judgment on which reliance is placed by the counsel for the Petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Petition allowed.