However, years later, Gulab Rani filed a complaint to reclaim ownership of some of that estate, claiming in particular that the contractual compromise act under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act was null and foregoing because he recognizes the marriage. (i) Any agreement to limit the conjugation of a person other than that of a minor is null and void. 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. 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. 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 English law, agreements that restrict marriage are discouraged because they affect the increase in population and the moral well-being of citizens.
Already in 1768, a precedent was introduced by the Court of King`s Bench in Lowe v. Peers, where the accused had made a promise under seal, no one but the promise to marry, on the penalty of paying their 1000 pounds within three months of marriage with someone else. b) A agrees with B that she will only marry him. It`s a valid marriage contract. The Law Commission has given extensive thought to the Indian Contract Act of 1872 and has proposed several amendments by adding a bill attached to the Commission`s report, in which it proposed the replacement of several sections, including section 26 of the Act, in order to obtain an amendment to the Marriage Limitation Agreements Act. “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. 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.