Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) By this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.9.2012 passed by Addition, Sessions Judge, Nimbahera (for short 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter) Criminal Appeal No. 8/2009 filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dungla, District Chittorgarh (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter), whereby the Trial Court ha: rejected the application of the respondent No. 2 for maintenance under Sections 18,19, 20 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005' hereinafter). The learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication of the application filed by the respondent No. 2 for maintenance under the Act of 2005.
(2.) The application of the respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the Trial Court mainly on the ground that in her statement before the Trial Court, the respondent No. 2 has admitted that earlier her marriage was consumed with some other person, which is still intact and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. However, the learned Appellate Court, in the impugned order, has observed that from the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No. 2, prima facie, it is proved that the respondent No. 2 has solemnized Nata marriage with the petitioner No. 1 and she lived with him for about nine years. The learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration the photographs produced on behalf of the petitioners and also taken into consideration the bank documents pertaining to the fixed deposit, wherein the respondent No. 2 is shown as wife of the petitioner No. 1. The learned Appellate Court has also taken into consideration that during the course of examination, the petitioner No. 1 has stated that he does not know whether the respondent No. 2 is shown as his wife in the voter list pertaining to the election of Legislative Assembly.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the respondent No. 2 was married before having live-in relationship with the petitioner No. 1, she is not entitled for maintenance. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, 2014(1) RJT442 .;