[…] Marriage withholding agreement (section 26) […] b) A agrees with B that she will only marry him. It`s a valid marriage contract. In this case, the parties were businessmen in Calcutta. The defendant, Rajcoomar suffered a loss due to competition from the complainant and reached an agreement with the complainant that if he entered into his business there, he would have made all the advances he had made to his workers. When the defendant was unable to pay, the applicant filed an appeal to recover the amount, but failed to do so because it was a trade restriction agreement that was therefore not applicable in court. (i) Any agreement to limit the conjugation of a person other than that of a minor is null and void. 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. The High Court expressed serious doubts as to whether Section 26 of the Contracts Act contained a partial or indirect restriction on marriage and was not persuaded by this argument.
Chief Justice Ahmad gave the verdict – According to English law, agreements that curb marriage are discouraged because they are detrimental to the increase in population and the moral well-being of citizens. Already in 1768, a precedent was introduced by the Court of King`s Bench in Lowe v. Peers, where the accused had made a promise under seal, no one but the promise to marry, on the penalty of paying their 1000 pounds within three months of marriage with someone else. It can also be mentioned here that the impugned rules previously provided for a restriction on marriage for the duration of the period of service, but it was amended by the company when a action was filed. Had the amendment not taken place, the Tribunal`s decision might have been different. There are certain conditions that validate a trade restriction on a value sale: “Limit marriage.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restraint%20%20marriage. Access 1 Dec 2020. Some agreements are unenforceable in court because they are contrary to public policy and the public interest.
Such agreements are not illegal, they can still be concluded, but they are not enforceable in court. In other words, if one of the parties fails to meet its obligations in such an agreement, the aggrieved party cannot take the matter to a competent court to assert its rights. Commercial, marital and judicial procedures are examples of such agreements. Although brokerage contracts were very popular in the land country, the courts did not obtain such agreements.