Muhammad Muin Ud Din And Anr Vs Musammat Jamal Fatima: Pre Nupital Agreement Between Husband And Wife Was Valid And Enforceable In The Court Of Law

Date of judgement :
13 May 1921

Bench :
Justices Lindsay, K Lal

Parties :

• Appellant - Muhammad Muin-Ud-Din
• Respondent - Musammat Jamal Fatima

Issue

The question before the Court in this case was whether a pre-nuptial agreement made between a woman and her potential husband and her father-in-law, providing for the payment of a certain maintenance in the event of future disagreements between her and her prospective husband, is moral and good in law and enforceable after her divorce or is opposed to public policy and void.

Facts of the case

• It was discovered that Mehdi Hasan, the husband, had married twice before and to each occasion he seems to have ill-treated his wife.
• The father of the plaintiff was, therefore, naturally anxious that something must be done in order to defend his daughter from similar ill-treatment and to secure for her a maintenance in case his daughter and Mehdi Hasan could not live happily together in their marriage.
• The pre-nuptial agreement in question offered that in case of disagreement or disunion the prospective husband and his father should be obliged to pay an allowance of Rs. 15 per month in addition to the dower-debt to the wife for her life and certain property was speculated to secure the disbursement of that payment.
• It should be noted that the plaintiff was divorced by her husband on the 14th of August 1917 and a ceremonial deed of divorce was completed and registered a few months later.
• But long before that date, differences had apparently swabbed up between them. The plaintiff had gone back to her father’s house in 1912 and a notice was sent by the husband to the father of the plaintiff on the 30th of October 1912, phrased in impudent terms and demanding that the plaintiff should be sent back to his house with her jewellery.
• There was other evidence as well to show that there had been conflicts between the plaintiff and her husband from about that time. On that evidence the Court awarded to the plaintiff the allowance mentioned in the agreement from the 30th of October 1912.

Appellant’s contentions

• The learned Counsel for the appellants contends while referring to the decision that was held in the case of Bai Fatma v. Ali Mahomed Aiyab1, that the agreement in question was held unenforceable; and that was a case in which a individual, who had a wife alive and wanted to marry another woman, had entered into an agreement with his first wife that he would pay her a certain payment as maintenance, if any alterations took place between her and her husband thereafter.
• The counsel prayed that a similar decision must be taken in this case and the contract should not stand as it cannot be enforceable.
• The Appellant further argued that such agreement in that case was treated as opposed to public policy, because it supported a separation between the husband and his wife and even engaged it.
• The appellant also claimed that agreements of this nature can be held against the husband and the wife can take advantage of such documents.

Respondent’s contentions

• The respondent argued that the agreement in the present case was executed before the marriage in order to restrain the prospective husband from ill-treating his wife or behaving inappropriately towards her or capriciously turning her.
• The dower-debt payable to the plaintiff was unquestionably a solid security against an unpredictable divorce, but that was clearly not enough to protect her from ill treatment.
• The Counsel also claimed that the agreement in question was obtained to secure the wife against ill treatment and to ensure for her a suitable amount of maintenance in case such ill treatment was faced by her.
• The counsel for the respondent also argued that such an agreement is not opposed to public policy and did not encouraged divorce in the slightest way possible.

Judgement

The Allahabad High Court held that the said agreement between the woman and her potential husband was not opposed to public policy in any way and granted the wife a decree for the account claimed by her.

Relevant Paragraphs

1. The question for contemplation before the High Court in this case was whether a pre-nuptial agreement formed between a woman and her potential husband and her father-in-law, providing for the compensation of a certain maintenance in the event of future disagreements between her and her prospective husband, is fair in law and enforceable after her divorce or is does it oppose public policy and is void. The Court found that the agreement was not opposed to public policy and awarded the plaintiff a order for the account claimed by her. It appears that Mehdi Hasan, the husband, had married two times before and to each occasion he seems to have treated his wife badly. The father of the plaintiff was, therefore, instinctively concerned that something should be done in order to protect his daughter from similar ill-treatment from the husband and to ensure for her a maintenance allowance in case his daughter and Mehdi Hasan could not live happily together.
2. In view of the circumstances and facts established in this case, we do not consider that the pre-nuptial agreement in the present case violated the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act or encouraged or simplified a separation between the plaintiff and her husband in any way, shape, or form. The marital rights obviously ended with the divorce; but the contract subsists till the plaintiff dies or breaks it, and so long as the right to maintenance lasts, it cannot be regarded as lacking consideration or opposed to public policy in any way. The discovery of the Court that the disagreements existed from the 30th of October 1912 is conclusive and cannot be disturbed in second appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement