Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 A B - ss. 2(f) and 3 - "Live-in relationship" - If would amount to a  "relationship in the nature of marriage" falling. within the definition of "domestic relationship" u/s.2(f) - Failure to maintain a woman involved in such a relationship - If amounts to "domestic violence" within meaning of s.3 - Held: All live in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage  - On facts, appellant, an unmarried woman, entered into a live-in-relationship with respondent knowing that he was married person, with wife and two children, hence, the generic proposition that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law presumes that  they are living together in consequence of a valid marriage will not apply and, hence, . the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, and the status of the appellant was that of a concubine - Relationship of appellant and respondent had no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, and did not fall within the definition of "domestic relationship" u/ s.2(f) - Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to "domestic violence" u/s.3 -  If any direction is given to the respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to the appellant, that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and have a cause of action against the appellant for alienating the companionship and affection of the husband/parent which is an intentional tort - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) - Art. 23 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - Art.16.