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. In India, contractual relations between two or more parties are mainly governed by the Indian Contract Act of 1872, enacted by the British imperial government, which then exercised control of the country. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that any agreement to restrict marriage, with the exception of those that respect the marriage of minors, is non-acute. Unlike Section 28, where agreements are only annulled within the total limits of the judicial process, the choice of words in section 26 retains its scope in a fairly general way, with no difference between a partial or total restriction of marriage, and has been interpreted as invalidating an agreement that would render both results null and void. Under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements restricting marriage, with the exception of a minor, are unhinged. The Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that respected marriage. The basis of the marriage limitation agreements, which are null and void, is that marriage is a sacrament and that nothing should encroach on the institution of marriage, not even 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 here that, according to the section, agreements limiting the marriage of a minor are not invalid. The Partnership Act of 1932 provides another exception to the rule limiting trade restriction agreements. There are three exceptions in the law.
However, it should be noted 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 was definitively in effect as part of the service contract. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act declares all agreements in trade restrictions, not entered into by tanto, with the only exception is the sale of goodwill. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that these agreements are non-abundant and not illegal. In other words, these agreements are not illegal, they are simply not enforceable in court if one of the parties does not fulfill its part of the agreement. Unlike the common law, even partial agreements of trade restriction or reasonable withholding under the Contracts Act are not valid. A marriage withholding agreement is different from both a matrimonial brokerage contract and a fiancee contract. Thus, the Commission envisaged limiting the Adrand of the section by rendering null and void any agreement to completely restrict marriage, while allowing a partial reservation if the agreed withholding was deemed appropriate by the Tribunal in the circumstances. This would allow for several agreements that could be better for both individuals and society. There are two exceptions to Section 28, as mentioned in the legislation. Agreements limiting judicial proceedings are valid if: […] Marriage withholding agreement (section 26) […] Thus, a Betrothal contract is neither in the restriction of marriage nor against public order, as is the case in Tulshiram v. Roopchand, in which a party had declined the fiance contract and then claimed that such a contract was void.
The plaintiff in the case where the compensation was awarded by the court, but for the amount already spent pending the marriage as well as for the mental torture and lack of social esteem that followed. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act is a widespread provision, with only one significant exception. It does not extinguish a partial or absolute agreement on the marriage of a minor. This exception, unlike public policy in general, is to marry a minor and, by the reluctance to commit such acts, the agreement that limits such marriages can instead be characterized as a more important public order.