Agreements In Restraint Of Marriage

In the recent case of Shrawan Kumar v. Nirmala, the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of Allahabad high asks the court for an injunction on the marriage of the accused with the other person. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had promised to marry her and that, therefore, her marriage to the other person should be charged. Pankaj Mithal, J. cites Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act in 1872, when he was giving his verdict, denouncing the petition. A similar attitude was also adopted in A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthy, in which The Mitwitwens had reached an agreement to lose their share in the deceased husband`s property if they remarried, and this was held a valid contract, as the agreement did not directly limit the marriage. Courts have often upheld a limited reluctance that only partially limits marriage. Although marriage customs were only partially part of the payment of a certain amount, they are at odds with Section 26 of the Contracts Act. In India, contractual relations between two or more parties are mainly governed by the Indian Contract Act of 1872, enacted by the British imperial government, which then exercised control of the country. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that any agreement to restrict marriage, with the exception of those that respect the marriage of minors, is non-acute.

However, years later, Gulab Rani filed a complaint to reclaim ownership of some of that estate, claiming in particular that the contractual compromise act under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act was null and foregoing because he recognizes the marriage. (i) Any agreement to limit the conjugation of a person other than that of a minor is null and void. Thus, a Betrothal contract is neither in the restriction of marriage nor against public order, as is the case in Tulshiram v. Roopchand, in which a party had declined the fiance contract and then claimed that such a contract was void. The plaintiff in the case where the compensation was awarded by the court, but for the amount already spent pending the marriage as well as for the mental torture and lack of social esteem that followed. According to Chitty, a contract whose purpose is to curb or prevent part of the marriage, or to deter marriage, to the extent that it makes a person uncertain whether or not he or she can marry, is contrary to public policy. However, English law does not retain agreements that partially restrict marriage by separating from Indian law as stipulated in the Indian Contracts Act of 1872.