Facts
- The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff, a Mahomedan lady, against the defendant, her father−in−law, to recover arrears of certain allowance, called kharch−i−pandan, under the terms of an agreement executed by him on October 25, 1877, prior to and in consideration of her marriage with his son Rustam Ali Khan, both she and her future husband being minors at the time.
- The agreement in question recites that the marriage was fixed for November 2, 1877, and that —therefore” the defendant declared of his own free will and accord that he —shall continue to pay Rs. 500 per month in perpetuity” to the plaintiff for —her betel−leaf expenses, from the date of the marriage, i.e. from the date of her reception,” out of the income of certain properties therein specifically described, which he then proceeded to charge for the payment of the allowance
Law Points
- Section 23 of ICA 1872
- What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not
- Defendant claim
- Plaintiff is no party to contract
- She forfeited her right to allowance as her refusal to live with her husband
- His majesty in council
- As marriage were between minor and contract was between parent on behalf of the couple No suit by husband for conjugal right.
Judgement
- Entitled to get the kharach I pandaan – as they were minors all decision was taken by parent son their behalf.
- Husaini begam was entitled to get the benefit even she is living in her matrimonial home or not , Because all the matrimonial rights and duty start from the day of marriage
- there is no condition that it should be paid only whilst the wife is living in the husband‘s home, or that his liability should cease whatever the circumstances under which she happens to leave it.
