Agreement In Restraint Of Marriage Indian Contract Act

[…] Agreement with restriction of marriage (ยง 26) … It has been found that it is the father`s duty to choose the best possible boy and, if he is allowed to enforce a contract of the type in question, this would conflict with the duty he owes to his daughter and, therefore, with such a contract, contrary to public policy and illegally. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act cancelled all pro-tanto trade restriction agreements, with the sole exception of the sale of exploitable property or goodwill. However, it is important to understand that these agreements are non-illegal. In other words, these agreements are not illegal, but they cannot be brought to justice if one of the parties does not fulfill its part of the agreement. Unlike customary law, partial agreements aimed at restricting trade or appropriately restricting under the Contracts Act are also not valid. However, in general, such a service agreement is not considered a restriction at all, as it gives the freedom to marry in the event of termination of employment. On the other hand, if the agreement between A and B and A promises not to marry before the age of 35 in return for employment under B, it would be considered a restriction on marriage and would be void. Another type of restraint could have been imposed by allowing marriage only after the person had begun to earn a living.

This would ensure that the person is able to assume responsibility for a family when marriage is contracted, therefore reducing the burden on the parents of the parties and on society as a whole. However, a marriage mediation agreement differs fundamentally from an agreement limiting marriage, since it is an agreement that is necessarily with a third person, that is to say, with a person whose right to marriage is not compromised, while he intends to influence the marriage of two other persons. In accordance with section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements to restrict marriage, with the exception of that of a minor, are null and void. The Romans were the first to delegitimize the agreements that hold back marriage. The basis for the nullity of agreements limiting marriage is that marriage is a sacrament and should not intervene in the institution of marriage, not even in treaties. The idea behind this provision is not to deprive everyone of the personal right to marry someone of their choice. It is important to note that, in accordance with the section “Agreements limiting the marriage of a minor”, the provisions are void. 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. Thus, the Commission intended to restrict the scope of the section by invalidating any agreement by totally limiting marriage, while allowing a partial limitation if the restriction so agreed upon is found by the Tribunal to be reasonable in the circumstances. This would allow for several agreements that could be better for both individuals and society. After the sale of the good-business or goodwill, the seller always has the right to carry out a competing activity. . . .