SM RAJLUKHY DABEE v/s BHOOTNATH MOOKHKERJEE

(1900) 4 CWN 488

Submitted by
KARAN SINGH(1-A)

(ENROLL NO. 02517703823)

Under the guidance of

MS. RITIKA CHAUHAN
(LAW OF CONTRACT)
 INDEX

ABOUT
INTRODUCTION
FACTS
ISSUES
RULE
JUDGEMENT
ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
About

SM RAJLUKHY DABEE v/s BHOOTNATH MOOKHKERJEE, (1900) 4 CWN 488 Case

No. 2 of 1899
Decided On: Jan 25, 1900; At: Calcutta High Court
By,

Hon'ble Justice C.J. Maclean Hon'ble Justice Macpherson Hon'ble Justice J.J. Hill
Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Plaintiff: Mr Chuckerbutty For the
Defendant: Mr Sinha

Introduction

This is a case of contract where basic terms of contract is shown like when there will be a
consideration and when it will be not. As in this case there was an agreement between a
husband and wife in which husband agreed to pay his wife some money as a
maintenance and it was registered but the husband after some time refused to pay the
same.

Facts of the Case

1. 1) A husband and his wife had arguments and conflicts.

2. 2) To get rid of his wife , the husband agreed to pay a specific amount of money
for her upkeep and the agreement was written and registered.
3. 3) Later, the husband denied providing the required amount of support.
4. 4) His wife sued him for recovery of money.

Issues

The wife argued that there was an intention to sue because there was a written and
registered contract between the parties who were related. She should thus get the
maintenance payment.

Rule

“Provisions of sec. 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act.”

Sec. 25 of the Indian Contract Act, in this section says that, “an agreement made without
consideration is void, unless it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for
the time being in force for the registration of assurances, and is made on account of
natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other.”
Judgement

1. 1) As there was no natural love and affection and the agreement was made by
husband with his wife to get rid of her.
2. 2) Though there was a near relation and the agreement was in writing and
registered.
3. 3) So,this contract without consideration was not valid. Hence, wife can’t enforce
the contract.

Analysis

We can now say that if we want to rely on clause (1) of section 25 of Indian Contract Act,
then “factum of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to
each other is a condition precedent”1. In this case as it is mentioned both parties were
married to each other so it will be valid if the contract was made when they were in love
or before separating from each other as at the point they will get separated the account
of natural love and affection is no more.

If wife would have thought a bit about it and signed the contract before separation, she
might have won the case as all parameters will be justified and she will be getting the
maintenance amount.

Conclusion

According to me, two things can be concluded here firstly, love and affection is a
necessity in such contract only near relation will not do.

Secondly, before going in contract one must be careful weather it will be valid or not.

References

1. Bare Act (Indian Contract Act, 1872)

2. Google

3. Unacademy