Agreement In Restraint Of Marriage Meaning In Hindi

Interestingly, a promise to marry a particular person does not imply any restrictions on marriage and is therefore a valid contract. In India, contractual relations between two or more parties are mainly governed by the Indian Contracts Act 1872, passed by the British imperial government, which at that time exercised control of the country. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 provides that any convention to restrict marriage, except those restricting the marriage of minors, is null and void. Since then, brokerage contracts have been terminated by the courts, contrary to public order. For example, a departmental bank of the Orissa Supreme Court in Gopi Tihadi against Gokhei Panda and Another stated: “The examination or the subject matter of an agreement is lawful, unless it is expressly prohibited by law or the Court considers it immoral or contrary to public order. Under English contract law, a contract in which the marriage is entered into against the money paid is considered illegal, as the marriage had to be a common-law union of the couple. A conjugal mediation contract is a contract of remuneration of a third person against the negotiation of a marriage and, as such, contrary to public order and cannot be enforced. “Any agreement between the two parties that prevents either party from going to court in the event of non-compliance with the contract is an inconclusive agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act provides that any agreement that prevents an injured party from asserting its rights from applying to a court of competent jurisdiction in the event of an infringement or limits the period within which it may do so is an inconclusive agreement.

It is also stated that any agreement that destroys the rights of a party or exempts one of the parties from its liability is an inconclusive agreement. The Contract Act was the first law enacted in India and such an agreement, which, by its effects, would have the effect of restricting the freedom of one of the parties to marry. In accordance with the above-mentioned provisions, flight attendants left the service in the following contingencies: (a) at the age of 35; (b) for marriage, if it took place within four years of the period of service, and (c) for the first pregnancy. At Venkatakrishnayya v. Lakshminarayana, the question that was submitted to Full Bench was whether a contract of payment to the father in exchange for his daughter`s entry into marriage should be considered immoral or contrary to public order within the meaning of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The Full Bench considered that such a treaty was immoral and contrary to public order. The Full Bench settled for a case where it was a promise made to the father to get him to give the daughter to marriage.

Comments are closed.