Imp
Prescript
: In the technology gadget driven modern World, there are now Apps and websites for
matrimony aka match-making. A few decades ago, there were written sheets of
Jathakam and prior to that there were a clan called ‘Marriage Brokers’ – you may
observe in old movies and dramas of People telling lies and more lies in trying
to fix-up marriages. Something on this
theme in a Movie and a Madras High Court case dating back to 1893
Manal Kayiru (thread made of sand)
hit the silver screen in 1982. SVe Sekhar plays the man who lists out
many conditions for marriage including that the girl should be less educated
than self … Visu, the director acts as the Marriage broker who gets him married
to a girl, who does not meet with any of the listed conditions.
Generally, brokers are not shown in good light in Tamil movies and are shown as
comedians …
In olden days, many marriages were
fixed through brokers only. Primarily they were people, who used to travel,
know lot of people, had some knowledge, exchanged horoscopes, passed on
information on available eligible grooms and maids …. Now a days, there are so
many Matrimonial websites – some cater to specific communities, some general in
nature. Perhaps these Matrimony websites have replaced traditional
marriage brokers and has come to stay as a reliable data provider, earning good
stakes at that. They charge fees for registration (some are free)
and one can search from the database filtering their choice based on various
parameters which include age, income, caste, location, subsect and more.
In Western countries, there is Online
dating aka Internet dating whereby individuals can find and contact each other
over the Internet to arrange a date, usually with the objective of developing a
personal, romantic relationship. Online dating services usually provide
unmoderated matchmaking over the Internet, through the use of personal
computers or cell phones.
Here is something very interesting
from a civil case in Madras High Court in 1893 before Justic Muthusami Ayyar
and Justice Best. It was an appeal praying the High Court to revise the
proceedings of Subordinate Judge of Cocanada, in small cause suit.
The Plaintiff agreed to go from place
to place and select a girl for defendant’s wife. Defendant, agreed
to pay plaintiff, on account of plaintiff's wages in the said purpose Rs.
50/- Plaintiff accordingly selected a girl and got her married to him.
Defendant failed to pay plaintiff the said sum though demanded. The Subordinate
Judge held that the facts alleged were established by the evidence, but
dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract sued on was void as being
contrary to public policy.
Before the High Court the Q for
decision was whether the contract sued on is a marriage brokage contract, and
if so, whether it is invalid. An English case Hall v Potter, which
went up to the House of Lords was cited – in which it was stated that it is
conducive to public good that marriages should be procured and promoted by the
mediation of relatives and friends and not by hirelings. The court also
noted that a bond given to secure such payment was valid; but the
payment in that case was to be made to the father of the girl for giving her in
marriage. It is also to be observed that the money received by the father is
often applied in part to making jewels for the girl given m marriage and in part
to meeting the other expenses of the marriage.
Justice Muthusamy said ‘I would,
therefore, rest my decision on two grounds, viz , that the justice of the rule
of public policy is open to no question, and that no established usage
precludes its application except in the case of a money payment agreed to be
made to the father of the girl in the Asura form. I would dismiss this
petition. Justice Best added that the question for decision is whether
the Subordinate Judge is right in dismissing the suit as unsustainable on the
ground that the consideration for the agreement being money promised to
be paid for the negotiation of a marriage, the contract is against public
policy and therefore void.
This case is distinguishable from
the ones adjudicated in England and here it was a contract with a
stranger in consideration of his negotiating the marriage. An earlier decision
had also declined to give marriage brokers a legal status such as would enable
them to enforce their contracts by law. The Judges dismissed the
petition.
Much water has flown and many years
have passed by since … !! and now you have so many matrimony websites !
With regards – S. Sampathkumar.
7th Oct 2014.
Credits : caselaw extracted from the book
‘the Indian Decisions” - a re-print of all the Decisions of the Privy Council
on appeals from India’ edited by The Lawyer’s Companion Office, Trichinopoly
and Madras.
