November 7, 2024
DU LLBLaw of ContractSemester 1

Nawab Khwaja Muhammad khan V. Nawab Husaini Begam (1910) 37 I.A 152 Case Analysis

CitationNawab Khwaja Muhammad khan V. Nawab Husaini Begam (1910) 37 I.A 152 Case Analysis
Keywords
FactsThe 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
Issues
Contentions
Law PointsSection 23 of ICA 1872
What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not
Defendant claimPlaintiff 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
JudgmentEntitled 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.
Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority

Full Case Details

To do

Related posts

Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey(2004) 5 SCC 26Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Bhan.

vikash Kumar

Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.)AIR 1999 SC 1047

vikash Kumar

Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 (1943) 2 Hare 461

Tabassum Jahan

Leave a Comment