JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. By this misc. petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner Vinod Kumar Nathwani assailed the impugned order/judgment dated 21.03.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal under Domestic Violence Act, No. 32/2013 (956/2013) whereby learned Special Judge while dismissing the appeal of present petitioner affirmed the order dated 26.10.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur Metro in Criminal Misc. Case No. 129/2012 whereby he allowed the application submitted by respondent under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and awarded Rs. 2, 000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 05.07.2012 in favour of respondent and against the present petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent- Smt. Bharti Adwani filed complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the appellant before learned Magistrate. It was averred in the complaint that she is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner- Vinod Kumar Nathwani, non- applicant (petitioner herein) has also committed domestic violence with the complainant, therefore, protection as provided under the Act of 2005 may be granted. An application under section 23 of the Act of 2005 was also filed by the complainant with the complaint regarding interim order/maintenance, mentioning therein that complainant having best hopes of the success in the original complaint, but it will take time, therefore, according to the provisions of section 23 of the Act of 2005, the complainant is entitled to get the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month, Rs. 3000/- as medical expenses, and Rs. 5, 00, 000/- as compensation along with other reliefs. 3. Non- applicant filed reply to the application before learned trial court denying the allegations made by the respondent No.2. It was mentioned in the reply that the complainant has filed original complaint only on the basis of false allegations, it was also submitted that the complainant was a greedy lady and has filed the present complaint only for extracting more money. It was further submitted that the complainant has concealed the fact of earlier marriage and the first marriage of the complainant was not dissolved as per law. The appellant has also filed a petition for declaring the marriage with the respondent as null and void in the court of law. It was further submitted that the complainant has concealed the fact of earlier marriage and the first marriage of the complainant was not dissolved as per law. The appellant has also filed a petition for declaring the marriage with the respondent as null and void in the court of law. However, respondent is deliberately avoiding the said proceeding. Hence, the present application under section 12 of D.V. Act is not maintainable as the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the appellant. It is further submitted that the respondent has committed the offence of Bigamy and the case against her is pending in the court of ACJM No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of parties, vide order dated 26.10.2013 allowed the prayer for interim maintenance and directed the non- applicant to pay the interim maintenance as mentioned herein above. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, non- applicant preferred appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 before learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro which was subsequently transferred and assigned to learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 6. Learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of learned Trial Court vide impugned order/judgment dated 21.03.2014. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order/judgment, petitioner- non-applicant preferred this misc. petition before this Court. 8. Mr. Ramavtar Bochalya learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner- non- applicant submits that it is admitted position that respondent No.- 2- complainant is already married with Manoj Kumar and was not legally divorced, concealing this fact she entered into marriage with petitioner- non- applicant, therefore the relation of petitioner and respondent No.- 2- complainant cannot be termed as "relationship in the nature of marriage" or " live in relationship" and without "live in relationship" or "relationship in the nature of marriage", respondent No.- 2 complainant is not entitled for any relief under the D.V. Act, 2005. 9. Without considering all these facts, both the Courts below erred in granting interim maintenance in favour of respondent No.- 2, therefore this misc. petition may be allowed and both the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the application seeking interim maintenance may be dismissed. 10. 9. Without considering all these facts, both the Courts below erred in granting interim maintenance in favour of respondent No.- 2, therefore this misc. petition may be allowed and both the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the application seeking interim maintenance may be dismissed. 10. He further submits that after passing the impugned orders vide judgment dated 20.08.2015, Family Court No.- 2, Jaipur in Case No. 417/2015 declared the marriage of parties dated 23.12.2011 as null and void. 11. Per contra Mr. Govind Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.- 2 supported the impugned orders and submits that though no decree was passed for divorce but as per customary rights, respondent No.- 2 divorced her previous husband- Manoj Kumar and knowing all these facts, petitioner and respondent No.- 2 entered into wedlock on 23.12.2011 and started living as husband and wife, therefore respondent No.- 2- complainant is entitled for interim maintenance. 12. In alternate, he submits that it is true that their marriage is declared as null and void by the Family Court No.- 2, Jaipur vide judgment dated 20.08.2015 in Case No. 417/2015, therefore till 20.08.2015 she is entitled for maintenance. 13. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 14. In the matter of Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :- "We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a livein relationship in the nature of marriage. All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Appellant's and the respondent's relationship is, therefore, not a "relationship in the nature of marriage" because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than "in the nature of marriage" and the appellant's status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to "domestic violence" under Section 3 of the DV Act." 15. In the matter of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :- "a "relationship in the nature of marriage" is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married :- (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. 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' ----- 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'." 16. 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'." 16. Here in the case in hand, admittedly respondent No.- 2- complainant is already married lady with Manoj Kumar and no legal divorce is effected and there is no divorce between respondent No.- 2- complainant and Manoj Kumar, without divorcing Manoj Kumar she entered into marriage with petitioner-non-applicant on 23.12.2011 and thereafter lived with him up to 13.03.2012 only, therefore the relation of parties can't be termed as husband and wife or in nature of marriage, not only it, as per Section 494 I.P.C., marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife is offence. 17. Therefore, when prima facie there is no relation in the nature of marriage then respondent- complainant is not entitled for maintenance from petitioner. 18. Without considering it, both the Courts below awarded maintenance in favour of respondent No.- 2- complainant who is already married with Manoj Kumar, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable and this misc. petition deserves to be allowed which is hereby allowed and the orders passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside and the application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent- complainant is dismissed.