ORDER : M.I. ARUN, J. The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers: "A. To allow the criminal petition. B. To quash the entire criminal proceedings under section 125 of CrPC against the petitioner vide CRL.Misc.No.143/2022 registered by the Respondent and pending before Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC Court Hosadurga. C. And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.143/2022 has been initiated by the respondent against the petitioner. In the said proceedings, she has contended that though she was not legally wedded to the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent have lived like husband and wife. Based on the said assumption, the trial Court has granted an interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner. The same has been challenged herein. 3. The impugned order reads as follows: "Petitioner has filed this petition U/s 125 of Cr.P.C and IA.No.I U/Sec.125[1] of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is stated in the affidavit that petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent. The respondent has willfully neglected the petitioner and failed to provide sufficient means for her livelihood. The respondent working as Incharge Sub-Registrar of Hosadurga and getting month salary and he has neglected to take care of the petitioner to provide basic necessities to her Petitioner is not able to maintain herself an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to petitioner is required for her maintenance. If application is not allowed she will be put to great hardship. The petitioner has not produced any documents to show the exact income of the respondent. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary to direct the respondent to pay certain amount for maintenance of the petitioner pending disposal of the case. Hence, the court proceed to pass the following: ORDER Respondent is hereby directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner till further orders. P.F.paid. Issue notice on this order to respondent and notice on main petition to respondent. Call on 6-10-2022." 4. Hence, the court proceed to pass the following: ORDER Respondent is hereby directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner till further orders. P.F.paid. Issue notice on this order to respondent and notice on main petition to respondent. Call on 6-10-2022." 4. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the averments made by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.143/2022, she is not the wife of the petitioner, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance as per Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, more so in Smt. N. Usha Rani and Another Vs. Moodudula Srinivas reported in [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1442: 2025 INSC 129 , it has been held that when two persons lived as husband and wife, then in that event, irrespective of whether they are married or not, the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on paragraph No.15 of the said judgment, which reads as folllows: 15. This divergence in judicial opinion has been noted by the Court in Chanmuniya (supra) and therefore the question of whether women in live-in relationships can claim maintenance, u/s. 125 CrPC was referred to a larger bench. The discussion, to the extent relevant, is reproduced below: “24. Thus, in those cases 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. The man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the woman to vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of maintenance in Section 125 is meant to prevent. 25. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath, in its Report of 2003 opined that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period should be sufficient to draw the presumption that the marriage was performed according to the customary rites of the parties. 25. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath, in its Report of 2003 opined that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period should be sufficient to draw the presumption that the marriage was performed according to the customary rites of the parties. Thus, it recommended that the word “wife” in Section 125 CrPC should be amended to include a woman who was living with the man like his wife for a reasonably long period… 42. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC , so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.” 6. The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case: Whether the trial Court was right in granting interim maintenance to the respondent? 7. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows: " 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case: Whether the trial Court was right in granting interim maintenance to the respondent? 7. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows: " 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. —(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain— (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) 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, or (d) 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: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. Explanation.—For the purposes of this Chapter,— (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’s allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.—If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order." 8. Admittedly, the pleadings in the petition made by the respondent goes to show that she never got married to the petitioner. There is an assertion that though they were not married they lived like husband and wife. Unless she is able to establish, prima facie, that they lived together like husband and wife, the question of granting any maintenance in her favour by the trial Court does not arise. The ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decision, is applicable to those cases where the lady is able to show that though she has not got married to the man, they have both lived like husband and wife together. In the instant case, the pleadings made in the petition filed by respondent is not sufficient to establish that the petitioner and respondent have lived as husband and wife though they are not legally married, as no reliable proof has been adduced to make out a prima facie case by the respondent. Under the said circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have passed the impugned order awarding interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. However, the trial Court can pass an order on the application made by the respondent after due enquiry. Hence the following: ORDER i. The petition is hereby allowed-in-part ii. The impugned order dated 17.09.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.143/2022 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, is hereby set aside. iii. It is needless to state that the respondent is at liberty to claim maintenance at the hands of the petitioner if she is successful after due enquiry.