Agreement in Restraint of Marriage

Introduction:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that certain agreements are void. These types of agreements include agreement that breaches the law or public policy or takes away the right of someone. A kind of this agreement is

“agreement in restraint of marriage”. Agreement in restraint of marriage is void.

Click here to know more about our Upcoming Courses

Definition:

According to section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agreement in restraint of the marriage is void other than the marriage of a minor. Because it restricts the right to marriage of a person or right to marry with their choice, that is against the public policy. The restriction may be wholly or partially may be restricted to marrying a person or for a certain period of time.

Case laws:

In Lowe v. Peers, the defendant promise not to marry another woman, if he does so, will pay £2,000 to the plaintiff. This is against public policy hence, it is a void agreement.\

In Hartly v. Rice, the court held that the arrangement where one of the parties agreed not to get married until a certain time was declared void since it was probably equal to making the oath of restriction under pressure.

In Venkata Kristnayya v. Lakshmi Narayana, a contract made with the consideration to pay the father for giving his daughter is immoral and opposed the public policy. Therefore, it is void.

The Allahabad High Court in Abbas Khan v. Nur Khan declared that even though customary practices partially restrict marriage, they are invalid because they violate Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act. Since then, the judiciary has upheld this case’s reasoning and determined that an agreement in India that forbids marriage wholly or in part is invalid. On the contrary, the Law Commission’s 13th report stipulated that partial restraint in marriage may be declared lawful, but only at the court’s discretion, that is, if the court determines its reasonableness after reviewing the case’s factual matrix.

The widow would lose the right to maintenance if remarried; the agreement is upheld in Latafatunnissa v. Shaharbanu Begum.

An agreement between the two co-widows, if either of them remarries would lose the right to the property of the deceased husband, is not restrained in marriage. It was recognized in Rao Rani v. Gulab Rani and A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthi.

The contract made before marriage that if the husband married another woman, the first wife would get a divorce, the agreement is valid. It was observed in Moharrum Ali v. Aysha Khatun and Badu v. Badarnessa.

In Jamila Khatoon v. Abdul Rashid, the court has recognized that a contract made before marriage that calls for the husband to pay the wife’s customary maintenance allowance in the event of strained relations between the husband and wife is not void under any statutory provisions.

In Air India and Others v. Nergesh Meerza and Others, the Supreme Court held that the restriction on marriage that inflicts the services is valid. 

Conclusion:

Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that an agreement in restraint of marriage is void unless the marriage of a minor. However, there are some exceptions in which agreement in restraint of marriage is validly recognized by the courts. These agreements may restrict the widow from remarriage, the first wife can claim for divorce if the husband marries another woman or restrain in marriage for service, etc.

References:

Books:

Indian Contract Act, 1872

Law of Contract and Specific Relief by Avtar Singh; Ninth Edition

Law of Contract Part I by R.K.Bangia; Edition 2006

Cases:

Lowe v. Peers, 1768 4 Burr. 2225

Hartly v. Rice, 1808 10 East 22

Venkata Kristnayya v. Lakshmi Narayana, 32 Mad. 185. 1

Abbas Khan v. Nur Khan, AIR 1920 Lah 357: 1920 1 Lah 574: 58 IC 167 144

Latafatunnissa v. Shaharbanu Begum, AIR 1932 Oudh 108

Rao Rani v. Gulab Rani, AIR 1942 All 351; ILR 1942 All 810

A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthi, AIR 1957 Ori 125

Moharrum Ali v. Aysha Khatun, 1915 19 CWN 1226

Badu v. Badarnessa, 1919 29 CLJ 230

Jamila Khatoon v. Abdul Rashid, AIR 1939 Lahore 165

Air India and Others v. Nergesh Meerza and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1829

Article:

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: