173(2010)DLT1, II(2010)DMC677SC, JT2010(11)SC325, 2010 (4) KHC 425, 2010(4)KLT384(SC), 2011(1)MPHT228, 2011(1)N.C.C.226, RLW2011(1)SC198, 2010(11)SCALE112, (2010)10SCC469, (2011)1SCC(Cri)59, AIR2011SC479, (2011)1CALLT57(SC), 2011CriLJ320, 2010(6)CTC216

Coming back to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court and the learned Family Court Judge erred in law in 1holding that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi without even issuing notice to Lakshmi. Hence this finding has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Court which may issue notice to Lakshmi and after hearing her give a fresh finding in accordance with law. The question whether the appellant was married to the respondent or not can, of course, be decided only after the aforesaid finding. There is also no finding in the judgment of the learned Family Court Judge on the question whether the appellant and respondent had lived together for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage. In our opinion such findings were essential to decide this case. Hence we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and Family Court Judge, Coimbatore and remand the matter to the Family Court Judge to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Appeals allowed. 

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005