Pregnant Kim Kardashian hits the gym, could STILL be married to Kris Humphries when she gives birth

She may be pregnant but this hasn’t stopped Kim Kardashian from continuing her healthy lifestyle.

Kim is still going to the gym despite being pregnant. Copyright [Splash]

Dressed in a slimming all black work out kit, Kim was papped yesterday as she left her local gym.

It seems that not even being pregnant can stop Kim from staying in shape.

And it seems to be working.

Considering Kim is now three months pregnant she is looking remarkably trim, showing hardly any signs of a baby bump.

The make-up free star looked somber in the pictures, possibly due to her ongoing legal troubles with husband Kris Humphries.

Kris and Kim wed in 2011 and are now embroiled in a messy legal battle. Copyright [Rex]

Kim Kardashian wed Humphries in 2011 with the marriage only lasting a total of 72 days.

While Kim filed for a divorce, Kris declined citing that the marriage was a sham and should therefore be annulled.

[Related story: Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are expecting their first baby]

[Related story: Kim Kardashian feels SO BLESSED to be pregnant]

With neither party backing down, the legal proceedings between the pair has already exceeded the length of time the marriage lasted.

Yikes.

Family law expert Marlo Van Oorschot told our US sister site that because is no real pressing issue for the case to be given a priority, the legal battle between to exes could exceed Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy.

She explained: “A trial requires both parties to be present and if one or both of them are unable to attend due to unavoidable work commitments (such as Kris’) or health (such as being in the ninth month of pregnancy), trial will likely be delayed.

“There is no basis in the law to move this matter to an early trial schedule. There are no urgencies in this case, which are any different or more important than those of the public at large seeking their own divorces in the public courthouse.

“There are very few exceptions to allow for an early trial date and this case does not present those exceptions.”