Another type of restraint could have been imposed by allowing marriage only after the person had begun to earn a living. This would ensure that the person is able to assume responsibility for a family when marriage is contracted, therefore reducing the burden on the parents of the parties and on society as a whole. “Under the bombay presidency, people who negotiate a marriage when they succeed often receive 100 to 1000 rupees, depending on the difficulty of the case and the circumstances of the parties; and in Bengal, as you know, the Ghataks make great profits by negotiating marriage.” However, a marriage mediation agreement differs fundamentally from an agreement limiting marriage, since it is an agreement that is necessarily with a third person, that is to say, with a person whose right to marriage is not compromised, while he intends to influence the marriage of two other persons. The Contract Act was the first law enacted in India and such an agreement, which, by its effects, would have the effect of restricting the freedom of one of the parties to marry. The basic idea of this provision was to ensure that citizens did not lose their right to marriage after their election, which is an essential element of a civil society of personal and social importance, due to a contractual obligation contracted at any time. While indicating to companies to modify their rules in order to create parity at the retirement age of the two subsidiaries and also erecting the rule against the first pregnancy contrary to article 14 of the Constitution, it nevertheless confirmed the limitation of marriage for the first four years of service, taking into account the practical needs of the company and society in general. For example, in today`s world, higher education often extends well beyond the age of majority. If the Commission`s proposal has been respected, a parent can conclude an agreement with his or her child not to marry until they have completed their studies. This would contribute not only to obtaining comprehensive training, but also to the possibility of entering into marriages at a later stage where the parties would be more mature and the chances of a stable marriage would increase.

(i) Any agreement to restrict the marriage of a person other than a minor is null and void. There are certain conditions that validate a restriction of trade during the sale of goods: therefore, an engagement contract is not a restriction of marriage or public order, as is the case in Tulshiram v. Roopchand, in which one party had backed away 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 convicted for the amount already spent while awaiting marriage, for the resulting psychological torture and lack of social esteem. . . .