| 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:
- Husaini Begam was the daughter-in-law of Khwaja Muhammad Khan. At the time of marriage, it was decided that Khwaja Muhammad would pay Rs.500 as Kharch-i-Pandan (refers to certain arrears of allowance) to Husaini Begam.
- After 13 years of marriage, Husaini Begam abandoned her husband’s home and her husband, Rustam Ali Khan never persuaded the action for conjugal rights.
- Due to her abandonment, Khwaja Muhammad stopped the payment of Kharch-i-Pandan to Husaini Begam and therefore she sued him for breach of contract between them.
ISSUES
- The main issue was whether there was a breach of contract by Khwaja Muhammad?
- 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?
- Whether Husaini Begam’s refusal to live with her husband becomes a reason for the contract to become void?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
- The appellant admitted the execution of the contract but cited grounds for its enforcement. These grounds included that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring action on him and that she no longer has the right for allowance from him since she stopped living with her husband.
- He also raised questions on her chastity, but the Subordinate Judge considered that it could not be legally proved since the evidences provided were not enough to raise suspicions.
- The Subordinate Judge concluded the case and upheld the contentions of the appellants and gave the verdict that the plaintiff’s refusal to stay with her husband was enough of a reason for the appellant’s withdrawal of money.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
- The plaintiff moved the High Court. The Court stated that she had a clear right to sue for violation of the agreement.
- She stated that her husband used to visit her frequently since she left her husband’s home. The appellant never contradicted her statement and nor her husband initiated any conjugal rights.
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.
