In the recent case of Shrawan Kumar v. Nirmala, the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of Allahabad high asks the court for an injunction on the marriage of the accused with the other person. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had promised to marry her and that, therefore, her marriage to the other person should be charged. Pankaj Mithal, J. cites Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act in 1872, when he was giving his verdict, denouncing the petition. In this case, the Supreme Court found that section 27 could not be explicitly set aside for all agreements (except one exception) and that there were no two meanings to be attributed to the section. The vulnerability test in England cannot be applied in India. Although the customs of marriage were only partially placed under payment of a certain amount, they were found to be in contradiction with Section 26 of the Contracts Act. (ii) An agreement that partially limits the marriage of another person who is not a minor is null and void if the court finds it unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.” 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. Section 27 of the Act mentions only one exception that attests to the restriction of trade, i.e. the sale of good s or goodie. Another exception is the Partnership Act.
Shalini has an office supplies and books store in a place in Bareilly. A Zahida person plans to open his store with similar goods in the same place. Fearing competition in the market, Shalini entered into an agreement with Zahida not to open its business in the region for 15 years and promised in exchange to pay him a certain amount of money each month. Later, Shalini will not pay the agreed amount. Zahida is trying to take the case to court. The agreement is inconclusive, Zahida has no case. “During the presidency of Bombay, people who negotiate a marriage if they succeed often receive 100 to 1000 rupees, stumbled according to the difficulty and circumstances of the parties; and in Bengal, as you know, the Ghataks make huge profits by negotiating marriage. What prompted you to seek restraint from marriage? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible). It should be noted, however, that a violation of Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 was not invoked in apex Court by a partial restriction of marriage which, as part of the service contract, existed definitively before the Apex court. […] Marriage withholding agreement (section 26) […] While the Supreme Court has asked companies to change their rules to bring parity to the retirement age of the two subsidiaries and has also cracked down on the rule against first pregnancy, which it considers a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, it has nevertheless confirmed the limitation of marriage for the first four years of service , taking into account the practical needs of the company and society at large.
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 judgment- marriage brokerage contracts, separate from agreements in marriage retention, are defined as contracts to pay a third person to negotiate, obtain or perform a marriage. It can be noted here that marriage mediation was at least among pre-independent Hindus of pre-independent India, as in The Hindu Law of Some agreements is only detrimental to society.