Case Laws on Prenuptial Agreements in India.
On April 12, 1957, the
plaintiff-appellant in this Court- instituted the suit out of which this appeal
arises against the third respondent who is the second son of His Exalted
Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad, and who will, hereinafter, be referred to as
the Prince.
In the plaint she alleged that she is the lawfully married wife of
the Prince, the marriage ceremony (Nikah) having been solemnized in accordance
with the Shia Law by a Shia Mujtahid on October 19, 1948. The plaintiff also
averred that the issue of the marriage were three daughters aged 8, 7 and 5
years; that the fact of the marriage was known to all persons acquainted with
the Prince; that there was a prenuptial agreement,
whereby the Prince agreed to pay Rs. 2,000 per month to the plaintiff as
Kharch-e-pandan; that the Prince stopped the payment of the allowance aforesaid
of Rs. 2,000 per month, since January, 1953, without any reasons and in
contravention of the said agreement. On these allegations, she
asked for the following two declarations:-
Citation :
Supreme
Court of India
Razia Begum vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum &
Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 886, 1959 SCR 1111
Author: B P Sinha
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.
Under the Hindu Law, as has been observed in the case of Tekait Mon Mohini Jemadai v. Basanta
Kumar Singh reported in (1901) ILR 28 Cal 751.
"the
duty imposed upon a Hindu wife to reside with her husband, wherever he may
choose to reside, is a rule of Hindu Law and not merely a moral duty.
An
ante-nuptial agreement on the part of the husband that he will never be at
liberty to remove his wife from her parental abode, would defeat the rule of
Hindu Law, and is invalid on that ground, as well as on the ground that it is
opposed to public policy."
In the above
decision the following few lines from Mayne's Hindu Law, have been quoted with
approval.
" As
soon as the wife is mature, her home is necessarily in her husband's house. He
is bound to maintain her in it while she is willing to reside with him and to
perform her duties. If she quits him of her own accord, either without cause or
on account of such ordinary quarrels as are incidental to married life in
general, she can set up no claim to a separate maintenance. Nothing will
justify her in leaving her home except such violence as renders it unsafe for
her to continue the,re, or such continued ill-usage as would be termed cruelty
in an English Matrimonial Court."
CITATION
Orissa
High Court
Sribataha Barik vs Musamat Padma
Equivalent citations: AIR 1969 Ori 112, 1969 CriLJ 761
Bench: S Acharya
No comments:
Post a Comment