Section 26 Contract Act: Agreement in restraint of marriage, void

Section 26 of Indian Contract Act: Agreement in restraint of marriage, void

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

Every agreement in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void .

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 26

Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 invalidates all agreements in restraint of marriage of any adult, upholding individual marital freedom as an absolute principle of public policy.

Core Legal Standard: Section 26 declares every agreement in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, absolutely void.
Operational Mechanism: Indian law adopts a strict prohibition: unlike common law doctrines that permit reasonable restraints, Section 26 strikes down both total restraints (covenants never to marry) and partial restraints (covenants not to marry for a specified term, or not to marry outside a designated caste, community, or geographic area).
Penal Consequences & Liability: The sole statutory exception is confined to minors, allowing lawful guardians to make protective custodial arrangements.

Any contractual covenant imposing financial penalties, forfeiture of entitlements, or damages on account of an adult exercising marital choice is void ab initio.

Key Landmark Precedents:

A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthy, AIR 1957 Ori 124: The High Court ruled that Section 26 encompasses both general and partial restraints of marriage. An agreement containing an undertaking not to marry within a specific period or without family consent is entirely void and unenforceable.
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335: The Supreme Court struck down statutory service regulations requiring female cabin crew to retire upon marriage within four years of service, affirming that contractual or regulatory fetters penalizing an individual upon contracting a lawful marriage violate constitutional dignity and fundamental public policy.

Legal Commentary:

In commercial and employment drafting, Section 26 strictly invalidates service covenants, employment bonds, or training agreements that penalize employees for marrying during their tenure or bond period. Corporate schemes conditioning executive bonuses, equity options (ESOPs), or training cost reimbursements upon an employee remaining unmarried are unlawful. However, Section 26 does not prohibit valid family settlement arrangements where a maintenance allowance is limited to the period of widowhood or adjusts upon remarriage.

Section 26: Agreement in restraint of marriage, void

Section 26 of Indian Contract Act: Agreement in restraint of marriage, void

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 26