Sakshi, Banaras Hindu University.

Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan

Vs.
Nawab Husaini Begam
Equivalent citations: 1910 SCC OnLine PC 15: (1909-10) 14 CWN 865 : (1909-10) 37 IA
152 : (1910) 7 All LJ 871.

Privy Council
Bench: Lord Macnaghten, Lord Collins, Sir Arthur Wilson and Mr. Ameer Ali. JJ

PETITIONER:
Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan

vs

Nawab Husaini Begam.

DATE OF JUDGMENT- 07 June 1910

FACTS OF THE CASE.

Khwaja Muhammad Khan entered into a contract on 25th October 1877 with the father of
Husaini Begum for the marriage of his son and the plaintiff. The contract expressed that after
the marriage, the defendant would pay rupees 500 per month on perpetuity bases as kharch-i-
padan, out of specific properties mentioned in the contract. The marriage took place on 2nd
November 1877 however because both Rustam Ali and Husaini Begum were minors hence to
which plaintiff was welcomed in her matrimonial home in 1883 and the couple lived together
till 1893 after which due to various differences plaintiff left her matrimonial home and started
residing at her pre-nuptial home. And during this time the defendant discontinued the
payment of rupees 500 as agreed earlier. The suit was bought in this respect, the subordinate
judge provided the decision in favour of Khwaja Muhammad Kha but the subsequent appeal
was made to the High Court where the decision of the subordinate court was reversed and the
court pronounced the decision in favour of Husaini begum. Hence this appeal.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether the plaintiff is legally entitled to bring legal action against the defendant as she is
not the party to the contract?

HOLDING
 The court held that the contract involved here created a charge on the immovable property and
designated the plaintiff as the sole beneficiary under it, thus even if she is not a party to the
contract she is qualified to proceed with the legal actions for enforcement of her claim.
Additionally, the charge created by the defendant which tied him to make regular payments, and
the contract which was executed did not provide any reference to the condition that such payment
would be rendered only if she resides with her husband at her matrimonial home. The only time
provided in the agreement was regarding the commencement of payments. Therefore, the court
gave a decision in favour of the plaintiff.
RATIONALE
Kharch-i-pandan, which literally means " betel-box expenses," is a personal allowance, as
their Lordships understand, to the wife customary among Mahomedan families of rank,
especially in upper India, fixed either before or after the marriage, and varying according to
the means and position of the parties. Although there is some analogy between this allowance
and the pin-money in the English system, it appears to stand on a different legal footing,
arising from difference in social institutions.