A two-judge bench made several observations regarding the concept of a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the 2005 Act. It was noted that in the USA, the term "palimony" was introduced to denote the grant of maintenance to a woman who had lived with a man for a significant period without formal marriage and was subsequently deserted by him, referencing the Marvin vs. Marvin (1976) decision.

The court clarified that a "relationship in the nature of marriage" is akin to a common law marriage, requiring certain criteria to be met, including holding themselves out as akin to spouses, legal eligibility for marriage, voluntary cohabitation, and being unmarried. Additionally, they must have lived together in a "shared household" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act.

The court emphasized that casual or occasional interactions, such as spending weekends together or a one-night stand, do not constitute a "domestic relationship."

While acknowledging that this interpretation may exclude some women from the benefits of the 2005 Act, the court asserted that it is not within their purview to legislate or amend the law.

Furthermore, the court underscored that Parliament's use of the term "relationship in the nature of marriage" rather than "live-in relationship" precludes judicial alteration of statutory language.

Ultimately, the court held that the High Court and the Family Court Judge erred in law by determining that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi without issuing notice to Lakshmi. The matter was remanded to the Family Court with directions to issue notice to Lakshmi.