The court said there was no reason to burden the woman's father with the "extravaganzas" of the plaintiff's son and the court shall not encourage such practice which was derogatory to women.
"I hold that the plaintiff (proposed groom's father) has failed to show any legal right to claim damages, rather the manner in which he has come before this court only confirms that this suit is a counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by the defendant (woman's father) against him pursuant to which the plaintiff had to return the amount of Rs five lakh received by him from the defendant," Additional District Judge Kamini Lau said.
The plaintiff, a resident of Delhi, claimed that he had fixed marriage of his son who lives in US with defendant's daughter, residing in Kerala, in 2007 through a matrimonial website and without any reason, the woman broke engagement.
He alleged in the suit that he and his son incurred huge expenses which included travelling to India to meet the woman, buying expensive gifts and diamond ring for her, throwing parties for his friends and colleagues in US, shopping, taxi fares and telephone bills.
The defendant had told them that he intended to give his daughter various articles including gold, land and car.
He claimed the groom insisted that he be given Rs five lakh instead of a car which was given by the bride's family.
"It is this which raises serious questions on his own
credibility and intent. This court shall not encourage any practice which is derogatory to women. Any demand which is in the nature of a condition for finalisation of matrimonial alliance is in the nature of dowry and cannot be encouraged and there is no reason why the plaintiff should be making demands for every single expense allegedly incurred by him.
It held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages or compensation from the defendant as asked for in the plaint saying he failed to show any legal right to claim the relief.
The court also observed that this case concerns a highly emotive issue relating to grant of damages for breach of promise to marry and there is a raging debate world over in various legal systems as to whether it should be made an enforceable contract or not.
"It is important that parties should be free to terminate their engagements, rather than being pushed into uncomfortable marriages - the possibility of legal action may have the effect of encouraging persons with less than the full matrimonial commitments to marry, resulting in the marriages being unsuccessful," the judge said.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
