Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)
Bai Appibai vs Khimji Cooverji on 14 December, 1934 cites

Krishna Aiyar vs Balammal on 6 May, 1910

19. I will now deal with the plaintiff's claim for ornaments and payment of her debts. Defendant's counsel argued that if these antenuptial agreements were in fact made, they could not be enforced, because the agreements, viz., to keep the plaintiff in Bombay, to provide her with a separate house and car, to give her ornaments and pay her debts, all hang together, and if the agreement to stay in Bombay could not be enforced on the ground that it was against Hindu law, the other agreements could not be enforced too. I do not agree with the contention that all these agreements must hang or fall together. The agreement to live in Bombay stands apart from the agreement to give her ornaments and pay off her debts, though made at the same time. I need not consider the promise to provide her with a house and a car, because no relief is claimed on account of the same. It has been held that an antenuptial agreement that the married parties shall not live together or shall live separately is void both under the English and under the Hindu law: see Krishna Aiyar v. Balammal (1910) I.L.R. 34 Mad. 398, 401. It is also opposed to public policy.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1