T. Sunil Chowdary, J.

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 7 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present criminal petition are as follows: The first respondent herein filed M.C. No. 7 of 2010 claiming maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the petitioner alleging that she is his legally wedded wife and the first respondent is unable to maintain himself due to ill health. It is the case of the first respondent that his marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 27.10.1994 at Yadagirigutta as per the customs prevailing in their community. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined with him to lead conjugal life and they were blessed with a daughter by name Srilatha. The petitioner left the matrimonial home of the first respondent along with her daughter at the instigation of her parents. Prior to the marriage, the first respondent helped the petitioner to prosecute her studies and get job in Health department. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 72 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same was allowed on 14.11.2007 Basing on the complaint of the petitioner, the Station House Officer, Atchampet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District registered a case in Crime No. 30 of 2007 for the offences under Section 498A, 506 and 509 IPC against the first respondent.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold: (1) the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the first respondent; (2) a husband is not entitled to claim maintenance from his wife under Section 125 Cr.PC; and (3) the proceedings against the petitioner are nothing short of abuse of process of law; therefore it is a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that under Section 125 Cr.P.C, first respondent is entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner, who is his legally wedded wife. She further submitted that the order passed in O.P. No. 72 of 2016 clinchingly establishes that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the first respondent.

4. To substantiate the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the following decisions:

(i) Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantral Shivaram Adhav, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows:

8. We, therefore, hold that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(ii) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows:

15. The marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the ‘Marriage Act’).:

(iii) Buddepu Khogayya v. Buddepu Kamalu, wherein this court held as follows:

7. Therefore, the averment itself clearly indicates that there is legally wedded wife to the first respondent by the date of marriage of the petitioner. Hence, she cannot be treated as wife as per the provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent, while submitting that strict proof of marital relationship is not necessary in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows:

13.3 While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision (Section 125 Cr.PC), the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the soci