The judgment establishes the principle that Maintenance claims must be supported by evidence and cannot be used as a tool for abuse of process of Law.

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 lea