K. Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner, who was an aspirant for establishing an outlet in rural area at Village Subhaheri, Block Bawal, District Rewari (Haryana), is aggrieved that the 5th respondent was awarded 20 marks in addition on the basis of a residency certificate issued to her by a competent authority which, according to the petitioner, is false as regards both her matrimonial status and residence. The petitioner attempted to bring proof of his contention that the 5th respondent had been married to a person by name Vikas by producing (i) a voter list for the village Bhudka; (ii) the birth certificate of a child born to the 5th respondent on 03.05.2010 describing Vikas as the name of the father of the child born through Shakuntla. On a complaint made pointing out to the conditions that any false disclosure of details would result in cancellation without notice, the Petroleum Corporation rest contended with a reply that it had elicited from the 5th respondent reiterating her matrimonial status as unmarried and her own residence as established by the certificate issued by a competent authority and confirmed its allotment decision. 2. The learned senior counsel for the 5th respondent could not deny the truth of the particulars as entered in the birth certificate but would contend that she was not married to Vikas Nehra but she was only a companion to him and she had live-in relationship with him. The argument is that the live-in relationship has obtained legislative approbation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and considered in some of the decisions of the Supreme Court that accord to a woman who is not married still to claim certain benefits mentioned under the Act that includes maintenance. 3. It is evident that the 5th respondent is making a desperate attempt to conceal the truth of what is so clearly evident. The Act of 2005 that makes possible a case of live-in relationship as entitling a woman to claim maintenance is an empowering provision to prevent destitution and to support what obtains as a new practice that is in the nature of marriage. The Act of 2005 that makes possible a case of live-in relationship as entitling a woman to claim maintenance is an empowering provision to prevent destitution and to support what obtains as a new practice that is in the nature of marriage. In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 827 : 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 746 : 2010 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 91 : (2010) 10 SCC 469 , the Supreme Court was considering the effect of relationship in the nature of a marriage or live-in relationship and stated that it could not include a one night stand relationship and would require a continuous state of companionship. This relationship ought not to mean that a kept mistress could obtain a benefit nor it could mean an occasional relationship with a male to secure to her the benefit. A live-in relationship brings a partner all the rights attached to a married spouse. The rule that requires a status to be declared must still be an honest declaration. If a woman who remains unmarried but lives in with a companion, then the disclosure must have been that she was a companion of Vikas or as a person who was in live-in relationship with Vikas. She cannot still describe herself only as a daughter of her father for that must be taken as a deliberate and misleading statement. By her marriage or entering into any form of live-in relationship, she may not lose her status as a daughter of her father but the requirement of having to describe the marital status must be understood as requiring to disclose any relationship that is in the nature of marriage. It is not as if an unmarried woman cannot secure an allotment. Here, the disclosure of her companionship would have shown that she did not have residence requirement and hence, she was concealing her actual status. The 5th respondent has made a statement, in my mind, with a brazen attitude to conceal what is relevant for securing the allotment. In the residency certificate, the 5th respondent has only been described as a daughter of her father and makes no reference about the person as being in live-in relationship with Mr. Vikas. The 5th respondent has made a statement, in my mind, with a brazen attitude to conceal what is relevant for securing the allotment. In the residency certificate, the 5th respondent has only been described as a daughter of her father and makes no reference about the person as being in live-in relationship with Mr. Vikas. We have already observed that in the decision of the Supreme Court in Patchaiammal (supra), the Supreme Court was holding that a persistent state of togetherness in the nature of marriage must alone secure the legitimacy of live-in relationship. I would understand a person that lives in with a man lives where he lives. A residence must be then the place of residence of the man and that is how the birth certificate describes her residential status as the village Bhudka. It should conclude that the evidence relating to residency as disclosed by her to be clearly wrong. 4. Awarding of 20 marks for the residency has been shown to be incorrect and the same would require to be removed. The counsel for the petitioner points out to me that in the manner of reckoning of marks, if this 20 marks for residency is removed, the petitioner would merit consideration as a person who has secured the highest marks for consideration for allotment. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Moumita Poddar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another, (2010) 9 SCC 291 , it has been held that it is not necessary to reopen the exercise again and it will be competent for a court to direct dealership to the next eligible short listed candidate for consideration. I allow the writ petition, quash the allotment in favour of the 5th respondent and direct consideration of the allotment in favour of the petitioner, if all other eligibility criteria are duly established. The writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 25,000/- payable by the 5th respondent.