9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and enforceability of the marriage contract. 2. Public policy and morality concerning the payment of a bride price. 3. Recovery of money advanced under an unfulfilled marriage contract. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Enforceability of the Marriage Contract: The primary issue was whether the contract for marriage, involving the payment of Rs. 650 to the defendant for the marriage expenses, was enforceable. The trial court held that the plaintiff's case was proven and that the money was advanced as consideration for obtaining the consent of Defendant 1 to give his daughter in marriage to the plaintiff's brother. The trial court overruled the contention that the agreement was illegal on the ground of being opposed to public policy. However, the District Judge reversed this finding, holding that the contract was unenforceable as it amounted to the sale of a bride for a price and was not for the welfare of the bride. 2. Public Policy and Morality Concerning the Payment of a Bride Price: The District Judge held that the contract was immoral due to the disparity in age between the bride and the bridegroom and that it was opposed to public policy. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the custom of receiving money consideration by the father of the bride is well-established throughout India. The court referenced various ancient texts and legal precedents to argue that such practices are not necessarily immoral or opposed to public policy. The court emphasized that the concept of public policy is not static and varies with the context and societal norms. The court concluded that the receipt of a bride price does not per se amount to a sale of the bride and is not opposed to public policy. 3. Recovery of Money Advanced Under an Unfulfilled Marriage Contract: The High Court held that even if the contract was deemed immoral or opposed to public policy, the plaintiff was still entitled to recover the money advanced. The court cited various precedents where courts have allowed the recovery of money paid under unfulfilled marriage contracts. The court emphasized that the plaintiff was seeking to recover the money advanced for a purpose that did not materialize, rather than enforcing an illegal contract. The principle that "a contract may be declared unlawful on the ground that it is contrary to public policy" was discussed, but the court held that the plaintiff's claim was maintainable as the contract remained executory and the money was paid to meet marriage expenses. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the suit by the plaintiff was maintainable and that he was entitled to recover the amount advanced. The court set aside the judgment of the District Judge, restored the judgment of the trial court, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 650. The court also awarded costs of the litigation to the plaintiff.
|
