JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - This application for leave to appeal against acquittal has been filed by Kulwant Kaur to challenge the acquittal of Prem Nath of Ludhiana by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide judgment dated September 23, 2002 for offence under Section 493 Indian Penal Code. 2. Kulwant Kaur @ Preeti, an Advocate of some standing and a member of the District Bar Association, Chandigarh has a curious tale to tell. When she was a young impressionable lass of 15 summers she was seduced by Prem Nath and was deceitfully induced to believe that she was lawfully married to Prem Nath. Under this belief she lived with Prem Nath and bore two children, son Ramandeep on November 10, 1977 and daughter Pooja Deep on November 9, 1985. Prem Nath was the father of her two children and in the entries of their birth, the children had been recorded as son and daughter of Prem Nath. 3. According to Kulwant Kaur she had joined Prem Naths firm known as Metal Fabrics India Private Ltd., Ludhiana. Prem Nath misled her into believing that all the requirements of marriage had been met and they started living and cohabiting together. She was given the assurance that she and her children would be treated as Prem Naths legal heirs but Prem Nath had gone back on his word and denied them legal rights. He discontinued visiting her at Chandigarh and banned her entry and the entry of her children in the Ludhiana house. 4. Prem Nath filed written statement dated November 13, 1997 in case entitled Ramandeep v. Prem Nath and others before Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh in which he stated that he was a married man, his wife Nirmala Devi was alive and living at the Mall Ludhiana. He further stated that he did have a love affair with Kulwant Kaur. The two children who were born to Kulwant Kaur were the result of this affair. The children were the plaintiff Raman Deep and Pooja Deep. 5. Kulwant Kaurs case against Prem Nath was that he had committed offences under Section 493 and 376 Indian Penal Code. She lodged a complaint with the police but no action was taken hence she was driven to file the criminal complaint on January 2, 1998. The children were the plaintiff Raman Deep and Pooja Deep. 5. Kulwant Kaurs case against Prem Nath was that he had committed offences under Section 493 and 376 Indian Penal Code. She lodged a complaint with the police but no action was taken hence she was driven to file the criminal complaint on January 2, 1998. After recording preliminary evidence the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh found that Kulwant Kaur had agreed to live with Prem Nath when she had been made to believe that she was his legally wedded wife, therefore, there was factum of inducement present and sufficient grounds to summon Prem Nath for an offence punishable under Section 493 Indian Penal Code. The accused was summoned on December 4, 1999 and charge was framed against the accused under Section 493 Indian Penal Code. At the trial Kulwant Kaur examined herself and led additional evidence of Rajinder Singh (CW 1) Record Clerk, Judicial Record Room, Ludhiana and Kulraj Singh (CW 3). 6. When Prem Nath was examined without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code he gave a detailed reply to the allegations in answer to the final question. Prem Naths defence was that he was 78 years of age, a graduate from the Punjab University and a self made man who had four factories in Ludhiana and one each at Chandigarh and Delhi. He had employed more than 500 persons and during the past five years had paid Rs. 1.00 crore as income tax. He further stated that he had got married in 1951 and had two sons and a daughter from his wife Nirmala Devi. His children are 50, 47 and 42 years of age. Kulwant was born in 1951 and her mother Harbans Kaur was employed by Prem Nath. The last rites of Kulwant Kaurs parents Sajjan Singh and Harbans Kaur had also been performed by Prem Nath. Kulwant Kaur was a student at Chandigarh and after graduation in 1974, she started living at Prem Naths residence at Chandigarh. Their relationship started after she had post graduated in Political Science. In 1976 Kulwant Kaur accompanied Prem Nath on a foreign tour for a month to Europe, Canada and U.S.A. and it was during this period that she became pregnant. In 1977 she gave birth to Ramandeep and in 1985 she gave birth to Pooja Deep. Their relationship started after she had post graduated in Political Science. In 1976 Kulwant Kaur accompanied Prem Nath on a foreign tour for a month to Europe, Canada and U.S.A. and it was during this period that she became pregnant. In 1977 she gave birth to Ramandeep and in 1985 she gave birth to Pooja Deep. In 1993-94 Kulwant Kaur passed LL.B. and joined the profession as a junior to Mr. K.S. Paul. 7. In 1995 when Prem Nath was 71 and had been operated upon at Escorts Heart Hospital, Delhi, Mr. Paul instigated Kulwant Kaur to extract maximum benefit from Prem Nath before he died. In 1996 Prem Nath got house No. 207 Sector 35 Chandigarh registered in the name of Kulwant Kaur. She was not satisfied and her demands increased. 8. Thereafter, Prem Nath narrated instances of harassment to which he was subjected by Kulwant Kaur. He stated that Kulwant Kaur distributed 10,000 defamatory pamphlets against him at Ludhiana and filed 12 criminal/civil cases against him in Chandigarh and Ludhiana. He gave a list of those cases. Prem Nath concluded by saying that he was being harassed and forced to waste his time and energy at the fag end of his life to attend the false litigation filed by Kulwant Kaur. He stated that Kulwant Kaur had enjoyed 20 years of luxurious life with him. The learned Magistrate was not convinced with the complainants case and came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove the necessary ingredients of deception contemplated under Section 493 Indian Penal Code. The accused respondent was acquitted of the charge. 9. In this application the applicant has argued that the relationship of husband and wife was denied by the respondent for the first time on November 13, 1997 when the written statement mentioned above was filed. She approached the police and when no action was taken she filed the complaint on January 2, 1998. It was also submitted that the summoning order had been challenged by the respondent through Cr. Misc. 2630 M of 1998 which was dismissed as withdrawn on November 7, 2001, therefore, the summoning order had been upheld by this Court (this is an astounding submission and is quite irrelevant in this application for leave to appeal against acquittal.) 10. It was also submitted that the summoning order had been challenged by the respondent through Cr. Misc. 2630 M of 1998 which was dismissed as withdrawn on November 7, 2001, therefore, the summoning order had been upheld by this Court (this is an astounding submission and is quite irrelevant in this application for leave to appeal against acquittal.) 10. Reference was also made to the decision of a Criminal Revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on May 2, 2000 wherein some observations had been made to the effect that Kulwant Kaur had been continuously deceived by Prem Nath into believing that she was his legally wedded wife (Reliance on the said order is quite irrelevant in the present application.) 11. The above decision was challenged by the respondent through Criminal Misc. 15294-M of 2000 which was dismissed on May 22, 2000. That decision was challenged by filing Special Leave Petition 1943 of 2000 which was disposed of on July 21, 2000 on merits but with a direction to the trial Court to consider the application for exemption of personal appearance (this submission is quite irrelevant in the present appeal). The appellant has also referred to the observation made by this Court in Criminal Revision 4499 of 1999 to the effect that "But one this is very clear from the admission of Prem Nath that he cohabited with Smt. Kulwant Kaur. No sane lady would surrender herself unless she (sic) her his male companion as her husband." According to the appellant the above order was upheld by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. while dismissing it on July 21, 2000. Applications for production of additional evidence and for framing of additional charge under Section 375 Indian Penal Code were also dismissed. 12. The acquittal has been challenged on the ground that the learned Magistrate had wrongly interpreted Section 493 Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate also erred in relying upon the authorities which were distinguishable and ignored the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and twice by this Court and once by the Honble Court. These are the orders passed during the various intermediate proceedings. Observations or proceedings in such orders are normally immaterial in this application for leave to appeal against acquittal. It was argued that the Magistrate had failed to frame a charge under Section 375(4) Indian Penal Code. These are the orders passed during the various intermediate proceedings. Observations or proceedings in such orders are normally immaterial in this application for leave to appeal against acquittal. It was argued that the Magistrate had failed to frame a charge under Section 375(4) Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate should have submitted the case to the learned Sessions Judge for decision on the question whether the offence under Section 375(4) Indian Penal Code was made out or not. 13. The complainant has also raised certain legal submissions with regard to whether the deception should necessarily be in the first instance at the time of the start of the relationship to come within the ambit of Section 493 Indian Penal Code or whether deception could be continuous. It has also been submitted that the interpretations given by the Courts in the various intermediate proceedings should have been accepted by the learned trial Court while considering the provisions of Section 493 Indian Penal Code 14. The applicants application cannot be accepted and must fail. It has been admitted by the respondent that the applicant and him (he ?) enjoyed sexual relations and also had two children. From this it does not follow that deception had been practiced by the man who was not legally married to the woman and that the woman had consented to cohabitation believing that she was lawfully married and such belief had been induced by deceit. Long relationship of 20 years and birth of children can still be possible without marriage or "deceptive" marriage. 15. The complaint was filed in 1998. According to the complainant the relationship between her and the respondent began when she was 15 years of age, her date of birth being October 15, 1953. This would mean that their relationship began sometime in 1968. The respondent admits that the relationship commenced from 1976. From 1968 to 1976 is a long unexplained period. The complainant in her statement as C.W. has not narrated how this period passed. Indeed she does not give any date, time or place as to when the deception was practiced on her, when did the sexual relationship first develop and when did the respondent tell her that all the formalities of marriage had been carried out and that she was his lawfully wedded wife. The statement of the complainant is extremely vague. Indeed she does not give any date, time or place as to when the deception was practiced on her, when did the sexual relationship first develop and when did the respondent tell her that all the formalities of marriage had been carried out and that she was his lawfully wedded wife. The statement of the complainant is extremely vague. She stated that she was employed by the respondent when she was 15. Thereafter, she describes how the sexual relations developed and she was made to believe that they were married but keeps every thing very vague. If she had testified that it was on a particular day at a particular place when the respondent practiced deception on her for the first time and made her believe that they were married, then it would have been necessary for her to state that after the deception had been carried out they started to live as a married couple. It would also have been necessary for her to state that they lived as man and wife during the period from the date of deception till her pregnancy. She would have had to cover up the entire period upto the birth of her son Ramandeep on November 10, 1977. She has herself given no explanation whatsoever except to say that in bonafide belief and out of this relationship a son was born to her on November 10, 1977 and a daughter was born on November 9, 1985. The birth certificates were Ex. C1 and C2. 16. As opposed to this the respondent gave clear cut version of the development of relationship in 1976 when both had travelled abroad leading to the applicant becoming pregnant and bearing a child. 17. The subsequent evidence of birth certificates Ex. C1 and C2, sale deed of the house Ex. C3 in favour of Kulwant Kaur wife of Prem Nath, Prem Naths passport showing Kulwant Kaur as his wife, photographs of mundan ceremony (Mark A, B and C), voters lists Ex. C5 and C6 showing Kulwant Kaur as wife of Prem Nath for the year 1988 and 1995 are not sufficient to even remotely establish that Prem Nath had practiced deception on Kulwant Kaur constituting an offence under Section 493 Indian Penal Code. 18. C5 and C6 showing Kulwant Kaur as wife of Prem Nath for the year 1988 and 1995 are not sufficient to even remotely establish that Prem Nath had practiced deception on Kulwant Kaur constituting an offence under Section 493 Indian Penal Code. 18. Kulwant Kaur and Prem Nath enjoyed an intimate live-in relationship which according to Kulwant Kaur commenced when she was 15 i.e. in 1968 but according to Prem Nath their relationship started in 1976. Even by Prem Naths own admission the couple lived together for 20 years and had two children. The relationship is well documented and has not been denied by the accused- respondent. The applicant enjoyed a luxurious life style for nearly 29 years. However, it is extremely hard for any Court to believe that she had been deceived for 29 years into believing that she was lawfully married to Prem Nath. At some stage during this period she must have seen and attended marriage ceremonies and realised that there were certain formalities to be observed when a marriage is solemnised. There must have been some occasions when this reality would have dawned on her and made her realise that she was not married to Prem Nath. She took no steps to prosecute Prem Nath for the offence under Section 493 Indian Penal Code for as long as 29 years. It is obvious that relationship broke down in 1997. This Court is not to enquire into the reasons for that break-down but simply notice that Kulwant Kaur came to realise that she had been deceived only when Prem Nath filed the written statement in the civil Court mentioned above. Infact there was no deception whatsoever. The two of them had accepted that they would live together without entering into formal bonds of marriage since Prem Nath was a married man and had a wife and three children who lived in Ludhiana. Kulwant Kaur must have known that until Prem Nath divorces his wife he would not be able to marry her. The relationship continued without any objection from Kulwant Kaur. It is obvious that she was quite happy and satisfied with the arrangement because it gave her security of a home and all the benefits of married life without entering into a formal matrimonial tie. We are constrained to observe that Kulwant Kaur is a gold-digger and lived as Prem Naths mistress for a long time. It is obvious that she was quite happy and satisfied with the arrangement because it gave her security of a home and all the benefits of married life without entering into a formal matrimonial tie. We are constrained to observe that Kulwant Kaur is a gold-digger and lived as Prem Naths mistress for a long time. Prem Nath had brought the relationship to an end, therefore, Kulwant Kaur opted to sue him in the Courts of law. 19. The trial Court had passed a valid order which did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or impropriety. The order of acquittal calls for no interference. Resultantly, leave to appeal is declined. Application dismissed.