JUDGMENT Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.08.2007, passed by Judge Family Court, Haridwar, on an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., filed by respondent Neetu against the present petitioner Badal (husband), whereby said court has directed the present petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to his wife. 3. From the perusal of the aforesaid impugned order it appears that it was a final order passed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., against which revision was maintainable. No revision appears to have been filed. As such, the aforesaid impugned order stood final. 4. In the above circumstances, section 482 of Cr.P.C., after a period of four years can not be made route for challenging the final order passed by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after order dated 13.08.2007, was passed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., the marriage between the parties to matrimony has been dissolved vide order dated 30th of May, 2011 passed by Judge Family Court, Meerut, in Suit No. 160 of 2007. In view of said development learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned order requires to be quashed. 6. But, even after dissolution of marriage the husband is not absolved from making payment of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Clause (b) of Explanation of sub section (1) of section 125 clearly provides that” wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. That being so, in the present circumstances of the case, this court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.08.2007, passed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. 7. For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily.