Wsparcie dla rozwoju systemów SAP

Case Laws On Agreement In Restraint Of Marriage

After the fiance, and separated from him by a variable interval, comes the marriage. An engagement contract signed by a wife`s guardian with the groom is not an irrevocable contract. However, custom requires that such a revocation of the promise be done with a just cause and, a few centuries ago, such a revocation would result in heavy penalties to be paid to the groom. Article 21, paragraph 6 of the Special Discharge Act of 1877, however, stipulated that the actual performance of a fiance contract could not be enforced. 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.

A similar attitude was also adopted in A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthy, in which The Mitwitwens had reached an agreement to lose their share in the deceased husband`s property if they remarried, and this was held a valid contract, as the agreement did not directly limit the marriage. 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. However, in general, such a service agreement is not considered a restriction at all, since there is the freedom to marry upon termination of duties. On the other hand, if the agreement between A and B and A promises not to marry until the age of 35, for example, in return for a job below B, it would be considered a restriction on marriage and would be anable year. 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.