Site navigation

A husband promises his wife ₹400 per month as part of a settlement of a prosecution for marrying again…

Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes an unlawful consideration or object fatal. The rule against stifling prosecution does not invalidate a settlement of a…

Choose your answer

A husband promises his wife ₹400 per month as part of a settlement of a prosecution for marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse under section 82(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The wife is the person entitled to compound it, and the court permits the settlement and compounding under section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Assume the other requirements of a valid contract are satisfied. The husband’s sole objection to enforcement is that the settlement stifles prosecution. Which conclusion is correct?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes an unlawful consideration or object fatal. The rule against stifling prosecution does not invalidate a settlement of a compoundable offence made with the necessary court permission. Section 359(2) of the BNSS includes section 82(1) of the BNS, with the spouse specified as the person who may compound.

Option feedback

Option A

The public-policy rule does not invalidate every lawful compounding.

Option B

Payment as part of a lawful settlement is not automatically forbidden.

Option C

Consideration alone cannot cure an unlawful object under section 23.

Option D

Court-permitted compounding brings this settlement within the recognised exception to stifling prosecution.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic