ORDER : 1. It is a classic case of misuse/abuse of process of Law. Though in the normal circumstances this Court would have declined to entertain the matter and relegated the parties to raise the issues before the Trial Court, the facts and circumstances warrants no such disposal. 2. Seeking to quash the Proceedings in M.C.No. 5 of 2020 pending on the file of the Court of the Learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, the present Criminal Petition has been instituted. 3. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the said case. The 2nd respondent/petitioner invoked the provisions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for Maintenance claiming that the petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 22.12.2019 at 9.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Sainagar Colony, Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and they lived together as husband and wife till 16.03.2020 and that he had started demanding the 2nd respondent to bring an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from her mother to do business and that on 17.03.2020 early morning at 3.30 a.m. the petitioner pushed the 2nd respondent from 3rd Floor Apartment, as a result of which, she sustained grievous injuries on various parts of her body and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for her treatment, medicines etc., and further that the petitioner on 17.03.2020 while leaving the house taken away Rs.50,000/- cash which was given by her mother and Gold ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000/-. Apart from making other allegations, the 2nd respondent claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards her Maintenance to meet the basic necessities of food, shelter and clothing etc. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Section 125 of Cr.P.C contends that in terms of the said Section, the person claiming Maintenance should be the wife of the person who neglects her and in the present case, the 2nd respondent herein, who is not the wife of the petitioner cannot maintain the Proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and as such the same are liable to be quashed. Referring to the material on record i.e., Final Report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Police Station, Tirupati before the Learned Magistrate pertaining to a complaint dated 23.05.2020 lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein leading to the registration of F.I.R.No. 18 of 2020 dated 23.05.2020 under Sections 498-A of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Women P.S. Tirupathi and also the subsequent complaint dated 03.09.2020, pursuant to which F.I.R No. 272 of 2020 was registered by the Mutyalareddypalli P.S., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and Section 506 of IPC against the petitioner and the order of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, West Division, Tirupati dated 23.10.2020, the learned counsel would strenuously contend that the said Reports make it crystal clear that the 2nd respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and habituated to make false complaints with a view to extract money. He submits that against the Final Reports of the concerned Police referring the complaints of the 2nd respondent made against the petitioner as ‘False’, no protest petition or other legal proceedings have been instituted and it is a proof positive that the allegations made against the petitioner are without any substance. He submits that after the Police have referred the complaints as ‘False’, the 2nd respondent filed the Maintenance Case on the basis of the very same allegations portraying as if the 2nd respondent is the legally wedded wife, by suppressing the crucial aspects. He submits that continuation of Proceedings against the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, constitutes abuse of process of Law and therefore, it is a fit case warranting exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he urges for allowing the Criminal Petition as prayed for. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand, submits that the Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are summary in nature and the petitioner instead of contesting the matter, has filed the present Criminal Petition under misconception and he is not entitled to any relief. He submits that the petitioner has to disprove the case of the 2nd respondent by adducing evidence and the petitioner will have an opportunity to establish his case and it is for the Learned Magistrate to decide the claim for Maintenance. He submits that the petitioner has to disprove the case of the 2nd respondent by adducing evidence and the petitioner will have an opportunity to establish his case and it is for the Learned Magistrate to decide the claim for Maintenance. He submits that the Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be restricted in respect of the category of persons referred to in the said Section and relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 141 and Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Others, 2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 172 the learned counsel would emphatically submit that in the light of the said decisions, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have to be rejected. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As per the pleadings of the 2nd respondent, the very basis for the claim for Maintenance is that she is the ‘wife’ of the petitioner herein, since she was deserted as sought to be explained in the petition for Maintenance, the petitioner is liable to pay the same. 7. Section 125 of Cr.P.C which is contextual, provides for Order for Maintenance of wives, children and parents in the following terms: “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain: 1. his wife, unable to maintain herself. 2. his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. 3. his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. 4. his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct..............” 8. In the present case, the 2nd respondent claims to be the ‘wife’ of the petitioner. In the present case, the 2nd respondent claims to be the ‘wife’ of the petitioner. However, the material on record i.e., Final Report of the Police, pursuant to the complaint dated 23.05.2020 of the 2nd respondent goes to show that no wedding/marriage of the 2nd respondent with the petitioner was performed on 22.12.2019. The relevant portion of the Final Report reads thus: “The complainant marriage was celebrated with one A.Hari Krishna in the year 1998 after some period they lead their matrimonial life happily for which they blessed with two sons. Due to matrimonial problems, she had taken divorce from A.Hari Krishna through Hon’ble Court vide D.O.P.No. 24/2012, Dated: 17.06.2013 by the Hon’ble Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Puttur. Since then the complainant was living separately along with two children at different areas in Tirupati some period, after that she married another man i.e., A.Mohan Rupa who is resident of D.No. 2013/231A, Ayyappa Colony, Sivajyothi Nagar, Kapilatheertham, Tirupati on 04.12.2015, then they were living happily some period, later some matrimonial and financial issues were raised in between them. In this regard, she gave complaints before the SHOs of Mahila PS and Alipiri PS, basing on these petitions Mahila Police gave counseling to both of them, pacified the matter by saying that their matrimonial and family problems will be settled before their elders and Alipiri Police registered a case in Cr.No. 235/2016 U/head Man Missing at Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati and the Alipiri PS Police investigated the case and traced out the missing man A.Mohan Rupa and also handed over to the complainant A.Krishnaveni Yadav. After some period A.Mohan Rupa went away from her house with an intention of leaving her. In meanwhile, she interacted and developed acquaintance with one Amarnadha Reddy, who was working in Mahila Police Station and induced him on the pretest to favour from her side. But the Amarnadha Reddy PC could not support her in this regard. Hence intentionally she was putting several petitions to the Superior Officer in Police Department upon the Amarnadha Reddy by raising allegations that harassment and threatening with intent to fulfill his lust. In this regard he was suspended and also departmental enquiry is going on. While she was maintaining life with A.Mohan Rupa, both of them were cheated one T.Bhagya Lakshmi. Hence intentionally she was putting several petitions to the Superior Officer in Police Department upon the Amarnadha Reddy by raising allegations that harassment and threatening with intent to fulfill his lust. In this regard he was suspended and also departmental enquiry is going on. While she was maintaining life with A.Mohan Rupa, both of them were cheated one T.Bhagya Lakshmi. In this regard, basing on T.Bhagya Lakshmi complaint a case vide Cr.No. 81/2017 U/Sec 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC was registered at Alipiri Police Station against A.Krishnaveni Yadav and Mohan Rupa. After that she maintained illegal affair with one M.Dhamodar, Sub- Registrar, Pakala since 2018 without taking divorce from A.Mohan Rupa. Thereafter, some ill feelings were raised between both Krishnaveni Yadav and M.Damodar, hence she gave a complaint before the SHO, Tiruchanur P.S., against M.Dhamodar, Sub-Registrar, Pakala regarding his cheating by maintaining illegal affair by saying false promise that to be taken care of her and also obscenely publicized relationship between them and made reputation tarnished. In this regard, the Tiruchanur Police registered a case in Cr.No. 336/2019 U/Sec 420, 500 IPC of Tiruchanur PS. Later on 23.05.2020 at 04.00 PM, she gave a complaint before me against the accused Talapala Rajesh regarding harassment on a married woman by her husband for demanding additional dowry. Basing on this I registered a case in Cr.No. 18/2020 U/sec 498(A) IPC and Sec 4 of DP Act and investigated into. During the investigation I have examined 5 witnesses and recorded their statements and also seized marriage documents which were produced by the complainant under cover of Police proceedings drafted on 23.05.2020 at 05.30 PM. During the course of my investigation L.Ws 1 to 3 are interested witnesses and blood relatives, they have stated the version of the complainant and LWs 4 & 5 are independent witnesses, LW 4 is house owner of the complainant and LW 5 is also resident in the house of the complainant. They were clearly stated that no marriage of Krishnaveni Yadav with T.Rajesh was taken place in his house on 22.12.2019 in between 09.00 AM to 10.30 PM. Further, they stated that only the complainant and her two children are residing in his house, occasionally the complainant’s mother also visited her house, but no other persons visited her house. They were clearly stated that no marriage of Krishnaveni Yadav with T.Rajesh was taken place in his house on 22.12.2019 in between 09.00 AM to 10.30 PM. Further, they stated that only the complainant and her two children are residing in his house, occasionally the complainant’s mother also visited her house, but no other persons visited her house. Later, basing on the marriage certificates and wedding card of both the accused and complainant, their marriage had been occurred on 22.12.2019 in between 09.00 hours to 10.30 hours in different venues i.e., Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Padmavathi Charitable Trust Temple and Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and also D.No. 204, Tummalagunta. Hence, I visited Sri Krishna Nagar, MR Palli, Tirupati for verifying Marriage Register and caused enquiry about the marriage of the complainant and the accused, but there is no Trust in the name of Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Padmavathi Charitable Trust at D.No. 4-150, Sri Krishna Nagar, MR Palli, Tirupati, Chittoor District and further visited Manchala Street, Tirupati and caused enquiry about Sri Anjaneya Swamy Jyothisyalayamu, Tirupati, again the same scene was repeated and Sri Anjaneya Swamy Jyothisyalayamu, Tirupati also did not found. Further, as per these two Marriage Certificates one marriage with same people in three different places is not possible within one and half hour i.e., 09.00 AM to 10.30 PM. On my enquiry, Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Padmavathi Charitable Trust and Sri Anjaneya Swamy Jyothisyalayamu are not there. Because, it clearly shows that these Marriage Certificates which were produced by the complainant are not genuine. Then, I verified the Wedding Card, which was produced by the complainant, on it mentioned that venue is Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Charitable Trust Temple only and remaining two places are not mentioned but there is no Trust available in the name of Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Charitable Trust Temple. Further, the details of the printing press were also not mentioned on this Wedding Card, which also clearly shows that Marriage Wedding Card is also created falsely. In the above circumstances, voluntarily the complainant was maintaining illegal affair with Talapala Rajesh for some period without taking divorce from A.Mohan Rupa. Thereafter, some issues were raised between them. Hence, she intentionally to bring out T.Rajesh put him in the fear of Criminal Case might have foisted by creating false documents with false exaggerated allegations. It is a fit case to refer the case as False.” 9. Thereafter, some issues were raised between them. Hence, she intentionally to bring out T.Rajesh put him in the fear of Criminal Case might have foisted by creating false documents with false exaggerated allegations. It is a fit case to refer the case as False.” 9. Thus, the Final Report would disclose that the 2nd respondent was maintaining illegal affair with the petitioner herein etc., and the documents i.e., Wedding Card etc., were created and the Marriage Certificate produced by the 2nd respondent is not genuine. In view of the said Final Report, the Police have referred the complaint as ‘False’. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent lodged another complaint dated 03.09.2020, pursuant to which the Police have registered F.I.R. No. 272 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 of IPC. The said complaint was also found to be ‘False’ and the Proceedings dated 23.10.2020 to that effect were issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, West Division, Tirupati. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is not disputed, the 2nd respondent had not filed any Protest Petition and kept quiet. In the light of the said Final Report extracted above, the very basis in the Maintenance Case that the 2nd respondent is the ‘wife’ of the petitioner and as such she is entitled for Maintenance has no legs to stand. In such an event, driving the petitioner to face the ordeal of Trial, in the considered opinion of this Court, is nothing but a futile exercise. 10. Even assuming that the 2nd respondent can maintain the Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, though she is not the wife of the petitioner, it is to be seen as to whether she is entitled for Maintenance, in the facts and circumstances of the case. As per the admitted case of the 2nd respondent, the marriage was allegedly performed on 22.12.2019 and she lived with the petitioner upto 16.03.2020 i.e., less than three months. 11. As per the admitted case of the 2nd respondent, the marriage was allegedly performed on 22.12.2019 and she lived with the petitioner upto 16.03.2020 i.e., less than three months. 11. In Chanmuniya’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia opined that where a man, who lived with a woman for a long time and even though they may not have undergone legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay the woman Maintenance if he deserts her and that if the monetary relief and compensation can be awarded in cases of live-in relationships under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, they should also be allowed in the Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 12. In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that if a man and woman lived together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. The said decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, are of not much aid. 13. In the present case, from the material on record it is discernible that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had not lived together for a long time, to raise a presumption of valid marriage or entitle the 2nd respondent for Maintenance on the premise that she is in live-in relationship with the petitioner for a long time, which is not her case. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 556 held that the liability imposed by Section 125 Cr.P.C to maintain close relatives, who are indigent, is founded upon individual’s obligation to the society to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Invocation of such a beneficial legislation by the 2nd respondent claiming to be ‘wife’ of the petitioner in the light of the adverse Final Report of the Police referred to supra and the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court is nothing, but gross abuse of process of Law. 15. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Proceedings in M.C.No. 5 of 2020 pending on the file of the Court of the Learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District are hereby quashed. 16. 15. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Proceedings in M.C.No. 5 of 2020 pending on the file of the Court of the Learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District are hereby quashed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 17. As a sequel, pending applications if any shall stand closed.