JUDGMENT B.R. CAVAl, J.:- Heard. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, application is taken up for hearing. 3. The applicant has approached this court praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 273 of 2012. 4. The facts, giving rise to the present application, are as under: The non-applicant no. 1 has initially filed Misc. Application No. 85 of 2011 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon against one Dhiraj Suraj Wasnik and the relatives of said Dhiraj Wasnik under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2.005 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act of 2005") contending therein that she was married to said Dhiraj Wasnik on 18th April, 2005. It is the further contention of the applicant complainant that Dhiraj Wasnik was working at Raipur. It is further contended that after some time, her husband Dhiraj Wasnik and other members of his family started assaulting her. It is further contended that said Dhiraj Wasnik also used to demand dowry from her. It is her further case that in the year 2008, said Dhiraj Wasnik falsely stated that he got service in Gondia and, therefore, they will live in Kumbhartoli (Amgaon). It is further stated that thereafter the non-applicant no.1 and her husband Dhiraj Wasnik were staying at Kumbhartoli. However, on 9.2.2008 said Dhiraj Wasnik did not return from Gondia. Thereafter, she along with her mother searched Dhiraj Wasnik at Raipur. When they went there, the non-applicants threatened the present non-applicant no.1. As such, the maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. was claimed against said Dhiraj Wasnik. 5. The non-applicant no. 1 has launched a complaint on 11.6.2012 against the present applicant, for which F.I.R. No. 50/12 has been registered by the Police Station, Ram Nagar, Gondia. In the said complaint, the non-applicant has stated about her marriage in the year 2005 with Dhiraj Wasnik. She states that thereafter she resided with her husband for six months. However, she was ill-treated by her husband and mother-in-law. Therefore, she came back to her father at Amgaon. Her husband also stayed with her at Amgaon. However, after 2-4 days her husband did not come back. When she went to Raipur, she could not find her husband and mother-in-law. However, she was ill-treated by her husband and mother-in-law. Therefore, she came back to her father at Amgaon. Her husband also stayed with her at Amgaon. However, after 2-4 days her husband did not come back. When she went to Raipur, she could not find her husband and mother-in-law. Thereafter, she came to Amgaon and started residing with her parents. She further states that thereafter she had taken a room on rent at Gondia on Ring Road and was working in Gondia Tahsil Office. It is further stated by her that the present applicant used to visit Ice-cream shop, which was near to her home. It is further stated that on one day when she was returning from Gondia to Amgaon, one unknown person telephoned on her mobile and started speaking in filthy language. She has stated that since she used to receive such calls frequently, she went to the present applicant in his office and sought for help. Since the present applicant scolded the said person, mobile calls were stopped. She states that thereafter the applicant and non-applicant no. 1 exchanged their mobile numbers and thereafter friendship developed between them. It is further stated that thereafter the applicant used to visit her house and used to ask her to keep physical relations with him. She further states that in the month of March, 2010, the applicant came to her room and under the pretext of marriage had sexual relations with her. She further stated that thereafter whenever she used to ask regarding the marriage, he used to say yes. It is stated that their physical relations continued till 26th April, 2012. It is further stated that the applicant used to tell her that after the marriage of his sister, which was scheduled on 18.4.2012, he would marry her. It is further stated that when she went to the house of the applicant on 19.4.2012, the relatives of the applicant abused her on the basis of her caste and her previous marriage. She further states that however, the applicant followed her to her room and told her that he would like to marry her only. Thereafter, on 26.4.2012 applicant came to her room and assaulted her. It is her further contention in the First Information Report that thereafter the applicant did not pick up her telephones. She further states that however, the applicant followed her to her room and told her that he would like to marry her only. Thereafter, on 26.4.2012 applicant came to her room and assaulted her. It is her further contention in the First Information Report that thereafter the applicant did not pick up her telephones. In these premises, crime for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered against the present applicant. 6. The non-applicant no.1 thereafter has filed the present complaint on 5.11.2012 against the present applicant under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2005. In the said complaint, the non-applicant no. 1 has stated regarding her marriage to Dhiraj Wasnik on 18.4.2005. However, for the first time, she has stated about her mutual divorce in the year 2007. She has stated that thereafter she was residing with her mother at Amgaon. In the said complaint, she states that the present applicant, though was aware about the fact of regarding divorce of non-applicant no.1, proposed her for marriage. She states that considering the nature of the present applicant, she got married with him at Dongargad temple in the year 2009. She further states that thereafter both of them were residing together in a rented room at Gondia. She states that she had made request to the present applicant for marriage according to the rites in ritual. However, the applicant avoided to do so. It is contended by her that she along with the present applicant resided together as husband and wife in a rented room at Gondia for three years. Further allegation made in the complaint; is that the present applicant is an influential person belonging to Shiv Sena and he has harassed her along with other persons even in the Police Station at Ram Nagar. In these premises, the application has been filed under the provisions of the Act of 2005 claiming various reliefs including monthly maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- p.m., rent for accommodation @ Rs. 3000/-, medical expenses @ Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 5 lacs for mental torture. 7. In this background, the applicant has approached this Court seeking invocation of powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. 20,000/- p.m., rent for accommodation @ Rs. 3000/-, medical expenses @ Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 5 lacs for mental torture. 7. In this background, the applicant has approached this Court seeking invocation of powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the proceedings initiated at the instance of the non-applicant no. 1 are nothing else but the abuse of the process of law. The learned counsel further submits that perusal of the F.I.R., lodged by the non-applicant no. 1 itself would reveal that at the most the relationship between the applicant and non-applicant no. 1 would be casual relationship and in no case the relationship could be termed to be live-in relationship so as to bring relationship within the ambit of the said Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 469 : [2010 ALL SCR 2639]. The learned counsel relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 369 (S.C.), submits that unless the non-applicant no.1 is divorced from her first husband, she can not initiate the proceedings against the present applicant. 9. As against this, Shri D.N. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant no.1 submits that the relationship between the applicant and non-applicant no.1 was more than casual relationship. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, they were living together as husband and wife. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the applicant had cheated the non-applicant no.1. The learned counsel submits that on assurances given by the applicant, the non-applicant no.1 had given up her job and as such it is his responsibility to maintain her. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the application, as filed by the present non-applicant no. 1, is tenable in law. The learned counsel submits that on assurances given by the applicant, the non-applicant no.1 had given up her job and as such it is his responsibility to maintain her. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the application, as filed by the present non-applicant no. 1, is tenable in law. The learned counsel relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ranbir @ Rana, reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 167 : 12006 ALL MR (Cri) 1826 (S.C.)], submits that the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy, [2010 ALL SCR 2639] (supra) would be at the most obiter and as such not binding on this Court. The learned counsel further relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deoki Panjhiyara vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and another reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 137 : 12013 ALL MR (Cri) 1099 (S.C.)] and on the Judgment in the case of Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another, reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 141 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 346 (S.C.)]. 10. The Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy, [2010 ALL SCR 2639) (supra) has observed thus; "31. In our opinion a "relationship in the nature of marriage" is akin to a common law marriage. Common 1aw marriages required that although not being formally marked: (a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses. (b) They must be of legal age to marry. (c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. (d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. In our opinion a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a "shared household" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a "domestic relationship". "32. In our opinion not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a "domestic relationship". "32. In our opinion not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a "keep" whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage. "33. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" and not "live-in relationship". The Court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute." 11. It can, thus, clearly be seen that the Apex Court in unequivocal terms held that all live-in relationships will not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. It has been held that to get such benefits, it is necessary to prove that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, they must be of legal age to marry, they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried and they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. 12. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1 relying on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana, [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1826 (S.C.)] (supra) is concerned, assuming for a moment that the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy, [2010 ALL SCR 2639] (supra) is an obiter, still it will be binding on this court. 13. 13. Insofar as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chanmuniya, [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 346 (S.C.)] (supra) is concerned, no doubt that the Apex Court has taken a view that in view of the term 'domestic relationship' as used in the Act of 2005, which includes live-in relationship, wider interpretation is required to be given to the word "wife" in section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has referred the question to the larger bench. However, in the said case also the issue arise out of long cohabitation. In view of what has been stated by us hereinunder, it would be clear that even according to the non-applicant no.1 complainant, her case is not of long cohabitation. 14. Insofar as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deoki Panjhiyara, [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1099 (S.C.)] (supra) is concerned, admittedly the parties therein were married to each other in the year 2006. The learned trial Judge had granted interim maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against that the petition was tiled by the husband before the High Court. However, subsequently, an attempt was made by the husband to recall the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that his marriage with the appellant was void inasmuch as the appellant was already married to one Rohit Kumar Mishra. In support thereof he has placed on record a certificate of marriage dated 18.4.2003. The learned trial Court had rejected the said application. The said was challenged by the husband before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the revision as well as the writ petition holding that the marriage certificate dated 18.4.2003 was a conclusive proof of first marriage of the appellant wife and as such she was not entitled to the maintenance. In this factual background, the Apex Court has held as under: "23. We would also like to emphasis that any determination of the validity of the marriage between the parties could have been made only by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties and in compliance with all other requirements of law. In this factual background, the Apex Court has held as under: "23. We would also like to emphasis that any determination of the validity of the marriage between the parties could have been made only by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties and in compliance with all other requirements of law. Mere production of a marriage certificate issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in support of the claimed first marriage of the appellant with Rohit Kumar Mishra was not sufficient for any of the courts, including the high Court, to render a complete and effective decision with regard to the marital status of the parties and that too in a collateral proceeding for maintenance. Consequently, we hold that in the present case until the invalidation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is made by a competent court it would only be correct to proceed on the basis that the appellant continues to be the wife of the respondent so as to entitle her to claim all benefits and protection available under the DV Act, 2005." 15. It is to be noted that in the said case, undisputedly the parties were married to each other. As a matter of fact, wife had disputed the said marriage certificate. However, the facts in the present case are totally different. In that view of the matter, said Judgment would also not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. In the present case, it could clearly be seen that the present non-applicant no.1 has taken three different stands in three different proceedings. Perusal of the first complaint would show that the tenor of the said complaint is that her marriage with said Dhiraj Wasnik is still subsisting. In the First Information Report, which is lodged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Act read with the provisions of the Atrocities Act, she states that she was residing in a room rented by her and the present applicant used to visit her and demand sexual pleasure. She states that in March, 2010, the applicant had come to her room and had sex with her and thereafter they continued to have sexual relationships till 26th April, 2012. The First Information Report was lodged on 11th June, 2012. She states that in March, 2010, the applicant had come to her room and had sex with her and thereafter they continued to have sexual relationships till 26th April, 2012. The First Information Report was lodged on 11th June, 2012. In the third proceedings, which is lodged by her on 5th November, 2012, for the first time, she states that they were married in the year 2009 and that they resided almost for three years as husband and wife in the rented room at Gondia. It is, thus, clearly seen that even in the F.I.R., which is lodged by the non-applicant no.1 for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, she has stated that she was staying in her room and was having sexual relations with the applicant from March, 2010 to April, 2012 as and when the applicant used to visit her. It can, thus, clearly be seen that in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy, [2010 ALL SCR 2639] (supra) the said relationship would not come in the ambit of live-in relationship so as to have benefits under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Again, it can clearly be seen that the non-applicant no. 1 has totally improved her story and taken a stand for the first time in the present proceeding, which is totally contrary to her earlier stand in the petition filed by her against her husband Dhiraj Wasnik and the FIR lodged by her against the present applicant. In the petition filed under the provisions of the Act of 2005 against Dhiraj Wasnik on 11th July, 2011 she has showed her to be wife of Dhiraj Wasnik, whereas in the present application she states that she had married the present applicant at Dongargad in the year 2009. The version given in the First Information Report is totally again different. In the F.I.R. she states that the relationship between her and the applicant was between March, 2010 to April, 2012 and that too the applicant used to visit her in her room. 17. It is further to be noted that the non-applicant no.1 has taken totally inconsistent and contradictory stands in the proceedings initiated at her instance. Wherein in the complaint filed against her husband Dhiraj, she states that she was residing with her husband from the year 2005 to 2008. 17. It is further to be noted that the non-applicant no.1 has taken totally inconsistent and contradictory stands in the proceedings initiated at her instance. Wherein in the complaint filed against her husband Dhiraj, she states that she was residing with her husband from the year 2005 to 2008. In the F.I.R. she states that she was residing with him for six months. In the present complaint, for the first time, she states that, she had obtained mutual divorce in the year 2007. However, in the F.I.R. which is lodged prior to the filing of the complaint, there is no mention of the divorce taken by her from Dhiraj. 18. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the present proceedings are nothing else but an abuse of the process of law. This is a fit case in which this court should exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and said aside the proceedings. Hence, the following order. The Rule is made abso1ute in terms of prayer clause (ii). Application allowed.