Site icon Legal Vidhiya

Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Nawab Husaini Begam

Spread the love

Case Name:Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Nawab Husaini Begam
Citation:(1910) 12 BOMLR 638
Date of Judgement: 7th June 1910
Court:Bombay High Court
Appellants:Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan
Respondent: Nawab Husaini Begam
Bench:Macnaghten, Collins, A Wilson, A. Ali
Keywords:Doctrine of PrivityKharch-i-PandanRecovering of arrears

FACTS OF THE CASE:

ISSUES

  1. The main issue was whether there was a breach of contract by Khwaja Muhammad?
  2. If yes, whether Khwaja Muhammad’s decision was legible for withdrawal of money from Husaini Begam due to her refusal to live with her husband?
  3. Whether Husaini Begam’s refusal to live with her husband becomes a reason for the contract to become void?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

The Court explained the term of ‘Kharch-i-Pandan’ which literally means ‘betel-box expenses’. This is a personal allowance which is customary in Mohammedan law. In case of minors, this arrangement is usually made between parents or guardians. The allowance paid as ‘Kharch-i-Pandan’ is not under the control of the husband. There was no condition in the agreement that as long as she remains the wife of his son, he shall continue the payment. The appellant was unconditionally bound to continue the payment and there was no condition either for his liability to cease. The Subordinate Judge’s decision was overruled and the appellant was directed to make the costs. 

CONCLUSION

This case showed that any such agreements made during the marriage of minors can result in serious issues. Firstly, marriage of minors is a serious problem and moreover initiating any contracts on the behalf of a minor creates more legal complications. In this particular case, the agreement was of the nature of ‘Doctrine of Privity’ which usually puts liabilities on the parties that are contracting with each other. When the appellant provided a defense against the respondent that she was never eligible to moved the Court for enforcement of the contract, a loophole in the ‘Doctrine of Privity’ saved the case of the respondent. The respondent therefore, became a ‘third person’ in the contract and she gained the status of beneficiary. She eventually attained the right to sue the appellant and recover the costs from him.

Written By Sama Amin a student of Amity University, Dubai, 6th Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Exit mobile version