Agreement In Restraint Of Marriage Section 26
The Contracts Act was the first law enacted in India that explicitly invalidated such an agreement, which would, in fact, restrict the freedom of marriage to one of the parties. The basic idea of this provision was to ensure that citizens did not lose their right to marry after their election, which, by virtue of a contractual commitment made at any time, is an integral part of a civil society that is both personal and social. Any agreement between the two parties that prevents either party from being tried in the event of non-compliance with the contract is a non-agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act provides that any agreement that prevents an aggrieved party from entering a competent court in the event of an infringement or limits the time within which it can do so is a non-agreement. Moreover, any agreement that would expire the rights of a party or absone one of the parties from its liability would be a non-agreement. Scott-Smith added: “Imposing such a habit would be tantamount to saying that a full-fledged woman cannot marry a man unless he pays a large amount that he may not be able to do to his closest male relative. It would be a custom of the withholding of marriage and against the principle of section 26 of the Contracts Act. In Venkatakrishnayya v. Lakshminarayana, the question was referred to Full Bench, if a contract to make a payment to the father given his birth of his daughter in marriage, should be considered immoral or contrary to public policy within the meaning of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Full Bench found that such a contract was immoral and contrary to public policy. The Full Bench dealt only with one case where it was a promise to the father to bring him into the marriage.
The preliminary proceedings had found such a practice and allowed the applicant to demand payment from the groom. However, a High Court chamber, in the second appeal, stated that such a payment of money for marriage to an adult woman was not applicable because it was immoral and contrary to public policy. The Lowe v. case. Peers set a precedent in the Marriage Limitation Act. In this case, the accused stated that if he married someone other than the complainant, he would give him 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. It was decided that such an agreement was a null and void. There are two exceptions to Section 28, as mentioned in the legislation.
Agreements to limit judicial proceedings are valid if: A similar attitude has also been adopted in A. Suryanarayana Murthi v.