This exception exists because it is generally contrary to public policy to marry a minor and, by exercising restraint in such acts, the agreement that restricts such marriages may rather be regarded as an encouragement to public order. Another exception to the rule of limiting trade restriction agreements is provided for in the Partnership Act of 1932. The law provides for three exceptions. It should be noted, however, here that a violation of section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 was not invoked in this case before the Apex Court, given that there is a partial limitation of marriage under the service contract. Therefore, an engagement contract is neither a restriction of marriage nor an opposition to public order in Tulshiram v. Roopchand, in which a party had deviated from the engagement contract and then claimed that such a contract was inconclusive. However, in the event that the court has awarded compensation, the complainant is for the amount already spent pending marriage, for the resulting psychological torture and lack of social esteem. In the most recent case of Shrawan Kumar v. Nirmala, the plaintiff, filed an appeal with the Allahabad Supreme Court and asked the court for an injunction on the accused`s marriage to the other person.
The applicant argued that the defendant had promised to marry her and that her marriage to the other person should therefore be stopped. Pankaj Mithal, J. cited, in pronouncing his judgment, section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, thus rejecting the petition. Engagement is a promise to make a girl in marriage. .