Section 26 of the Act states that all agreements that will partially or totally hold a marriage, with the exception of marriage, would be non-acute. For example, if Ria`s father, Amit, merely incites him to prevent him from marrying his daughter, such an agreement would be null and void in the eyes of the law, provided that the parties concerned are not minors. In the case of Shrawan Kumar v. Nirmala, the plaintiff found that the defendant had promised to marry her and, therefore, her current marriage should be submitted by the court. This petition was rejected by the High Court of Allah for the withholding of marriage. The philosophy behind this law is that marriage is a sacred social institution and that nothing should be allowed to disturb or restrict it until it does not affect minors. Therefore, an agreement to restrict adult marriage is voided, whereas in the case of the minor, it would not be too elbe. But this clause does not apply in the case of remarriage. In the event of remarriage, any sentence imposed on the widow would not be considered a deduction. This is what happened in the case of Rao Rani v. Gulab Rani, where it was assumed that the widow had to give up her property rights. 2. Unacceptable influence (section 16): “If a person capable of mastering another person`s will enters into a contract with him and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on evidence, to be unacceptable, the burden of proof that such a contract was not caused by inappropriate influence rests with the person who is able to do so To dominate the will of the other.” The basis for the delegitimization of a trade policy agreement is the historical context of the dispute between free markets and the possibility of agreements.
Guaranteeing freedom of the agreement would be tantamount to legitimize agreements to restrict trade, which would lead the parties to accept control of competition. According to common law, the current position is taken from Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. Ltd. In this case, Thorsten Nordenfelt was a gun manufacturer in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business to an organization that, at that time, transferred the business to Maxim Nordenfelt. Then Thorsten agreed with Maxim that he would not participate in the assembly of weapons for a period of 25 years, apart from what he produces for the good of the organization.