Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, Tulshiram and his daughter Rekha, filed a suit for damages against the defendants, Roopchand and his father Laxman, for breach of a contract to marry. Rekha was born on 4th May 1971, and was engaged to Roopchand on 25th December 1988. The marriage was scheduled for 7th July 1989 (according to plaintiffs) or 20th November 1989 (according to defendants). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants demanded a scooter, gold ring, etc., and when plaintiff No.1 expressed inability, defendant No.1 refused to marry plaintiff No.2, breaking the marriage on 4th June 1989. The plaintiffs claimed Rs.35,000 as damages for expenses incurred and mental torture. The defendants denied the demands and alleged that the plaintiffs themselves broke the contract. The trial court decreed Rs.27,000 in favor of the plaintiffs. The District Judge allowed the defendants' appeal, holding that the contract of marriage was void ab initio because plaintiff No.2 was a minor at the time of engagement (she was 17 years 7 months old). The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that a contract of marriage with a minor is not void ab initio but voidable at the instance of the minor. Since the minor (plaintiff No.2) was not challenging the contract, it was valid. The court applied Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provides for restitution when an agreement is discovered to be void. The plaintiffs had spent money on the betrothal ceremony and booking a marriage hall, and the defendants had received the benefit of the ceremony. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the District Judge's decree, and restored the trial court's decree of Rs.27,000 with costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Void Agreements - Minority - Section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - A contract of marriage with a minor is not void ab initio but voidable at the instance of the minor. The District Judge erred in holding it void ab initio. (Paras 9-10) B) Contract Law - Void Agreements - Restitution - Section 65, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - When an agreement is discovered to be void, the person who has received any benefit under it is bound to restore it or make compensation. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for money spent on the betrothal ceremony. (Paras 10-11) C) Damages - Breach of Contract to Marry - Measure of Damages - The plaintiffs spent Rs.7,300 on the betrothal ceremony and Rs.1,300 for booking a marriage hall. The trial court awarded Rs.27,000 which was not challenged on quantum. The appellate court's decree set aside and trial court's decree restored. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a contract of marriage with a minor is void ab initio and whether damages can be recovered for breach of such contract.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. Decree of District Judge set aside. Decree of trial court restored. Appellants entitled to Rs.27,000 with costs throughout.
Law Points
- Contract of marriage with minor is not void ab initio
- voidable under Section 11 of Indian Contract Act
- 1872
- Section 65 of Indian Contract Act
- 1872 applies to void agreements
- damages recoverable for money spent on betrothal ceremony
