The petitioner had questioned the maintainability of the said proceedings by pointing out that it is the admitted case of the second Crl.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 1 of 8 respondent that they are not married to each other, the case having been founded on allegations of "live-in relationship", his submission being that such relationship was not "in the nature of marriage", he to the knowledge of the second respondent being married to another woman (named Anjali) at the relevant point of time.The Metropolitan Magistrate, by her order dated 17.11.2015, rejected the said contention to put an end to the proceedings observing that the submission raised mixed questions of law and fact.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 1 of 8He has come up to this Court invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to pray that the aforesaid orders of the courts below be set aside and the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act taken out by the respondent be quashed.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 2 of 8It is her admitted case that she was aware that the petitioner had a child (a daughter) from his first marriage, narrating their initial interaction since they having come to be acquainted with each other since 2006, upon being introduced by common friends in Mumbai.She would claim that the petitioner had told her in December, 2008 that his wife had sent him a notice for divorce.The second respondent has narrated that the parties were living together and moving around in manner "akin to married life", even going out to various stations and Crl.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 3 of 8 staying together.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 3 of 8According to her allegations, on 05.04.2011 the second respondent incidentally came across a copy of petition dated 25.03.2011 of first motion for divorce by mutual consent to be submitted by the petitioner and his wife and this discovery revealed to her that the information about he having taken divorce in March, 2010 was factually incorrect.As per the case set out in the Domestic Violence Act petition, the relationship between the parties soured, for some time, the petitioner having tendered profuse apologies to her and she eventually having calmed down and accepted the position agreeing to be patient till the divorce came through.The petition under the Domestic Violence Act was presented in February, 2013 by the second respondent.A little prior to that she had lodged a complaint with the local police in District Gurgaon, Haryana, no action having been taken thereupon.She approached the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Gurgaon, which court, after pre-summoning inquiry, had issued process against the petitioner for offences under Sections 376/403/417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The matter arising out of the said proceedings eventually came up as sessions case no. 66/2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, the gravamen of charges laid against the petitioner therein Crl.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 2 of 8 being that he had subjected the second respondent to sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage and had thereby not only raped but cheated her.It is not disputed that the said sessions trial ended in judgment dated 12.07.2016 whereby the petitioner was acquitted with findings to the effect that the sexual relationship between the parties in a house in Gurgaon where they had lived together was consensual.

Relevant sections: Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code