In India, contractual relations between two or more parties are mainly governed by the Indian Contract Act of 1872, enacted by the British imperial government, which then exercised control of the country. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that any agreement to restrict marriage, with the exception of those that respect the marriage of minors, is non-acute. (i) Any agreement to limit the conjugation of a person other than that of a minor is null and void. Shalini has an office supplies and books store in a place in Bareilly. A Zahida person plans to open his store with similar goods in the same place. Fearing competition in the market, Shalini entered into an agreement with Zahida not to open its business in the region for 15 years and promised in exchange to pay him a certain amount of money each month. Later, Shalini will not pay the agreed amount. Zahida is trying to take the case to court. The agreement is inconclusive, Zahida has no case. Scott-Smith added: „Imposing such a habit would be tantamount to saying that a full-fledged woman cannot marry a man unless he pays a large amount that he may not be able to do to his closest male relative. It would be a custom of the withholding of marriage and against the principle of section 26 of the Contracts Act. According to Chitty, a contract whose purpose is to curb or prevent part of the marriage, or to deter marriage, to the extent that it makes a person uncertain whether or not he or she can marry, is contrary to public policy.
However, English law does not retain agreements that partially restrict marriage by separating from Indian law as stipulated in the Indian Contracts Act of 1872. However, years later, Gulab Rani filed a complaint to reclaim ownership of some of that estate, claiming in particular that the contractual compromise act under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act was null and foregoing because he recognizes the marriage. A similar attitude was also adopted in A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthy, in which The Mitwitwens had reached an agreement to lose their share in the deceased husband`s property if they remarried, and this was held a valid contract, as the agreement did not directly limit the marriage. The subject is a promise to give a girl in marriage.