JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri Amit Khare, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.M. Kolhe, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The respondents had filed application bearing No. E-288/2009, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which came to be dismissed because of non-appearance of the parties. The respondents subsequently filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is registered as Case No. E-491/2013. In these proceedings, the petitioner had filed an application (Exhibit No. 14) contending that the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier application. The Family Court has rejected the application (Exhibit No. 14) filed by the petitioner by the impugned order and the petitioner being aggrieved by it, has filed this writ petition. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the earlier proceedings, the matter was amicably worked out in mediation and the compromise terms were placed on the record and in view of the compromise, the application was not prosecuted further by the respondents and it came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is submitted that in these facts, the second application filed by the respondents is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment given by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of C. Subramanyam v. C. Sumathi and Another reported in (2004) 1 DMC 456. It is submitted that the Family Court has committed an error in not properly adverting to the issue and the impugned order is unsustainable and it be set aside and the proceedings filed by the respondents be quashed. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I find that the judgment given in the case of C. Subramanyam v. C. Sumathi and another does not support the petitioner. The issue which fell for consideration in the above referred case was as to whether the Magistrate has power to restore the proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I find that the judgment given in the case of C. Subramanyam v. C. Sumathi and another does not support the petitioner. The issue which fell for consideration in the above referred case was as to whether the Magistrate has power to restore the proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out any bar which disables the party from moving subsequent application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the earlier proceedings are dismissed for want of prosecution. The incorporation of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is beneficial to the persons who are claiming maintenance from those who are liable to maintain them. Looking to the nature of proceedings, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted and it cannot be held that the subsequent proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be maintainable if the earlier proceedings are dismissed for want of prosecution. 8. The learned trial Judge has properly dealt with all the relevant aspects and legal position and has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within one month. By the order dated 21-08-2015, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,000/- to show bona-fides that the petitioner wants to amicably settle the matter through mediation. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner deposited Rs. 50,000/- and by the order dated 10-12-2015 the respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount. Shri Amit Khare, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that till date there is no judicial order imposing the liability of payment of maintenance on the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is proper and justified. It is directed that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents shall be adjusted from the amount of Rs. 50,000/- withdrawn by the respondents. The Family Court shall pass appropriate orders at appropriate stage in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 45,000/-.