BREACH OF PROMISE IN INDIA.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5324, 20 April 1878, Page 2 (Supplement)

BREACH OF PROMISE IN INDIA.

The first Parsec breach of promise of marriage case was brought before the High Court, Bombay, lately, and occupied .the . Opart over seventeen days.' The case was that of Goolbai v. Manpckjee Limjee Mauockjee, in which the plaintiff sued her first cousin, the defendant* to recover 85.20,000 as damages for breach of a promise to "marry her. Being the first case of its kind amongst Parsees, a large number of . members , of, that community crowded the Court, and seemed to take a warm interest in the proceedings. The plaintiff, and defendant are first cousins, of the respective ages of St and 24 years, and were in their infancy betrothed in marriage to one another by their parents," who are sister and. brother, children of the late Mahockjee Limjee, who some years ago occupied the position of broker to several leading European mercantile houses in Bombay. Since the betrothal the plaintiff : spent considerable time at the house of the defendant’s parents, with" whom- he lived. During the visit of the Prince of : Wales to Bombay plaintiff Jived at her father-in-law’s house, and she was then, it is alleged, seduced by the defendant. Propositions , were made, by the defendant in two letters, which eventually resulted in the seduction of the plaintiff, in whose possession the letters remained. When she became aware of the consequences she mentioned the fact to the defendant, who told her not *to be alarmed. A consultation between their parents took place subsequently, and the girl was sent off to Dainaun in charge of a nurse, apparently with' the intoutioh 'to procure abortion.' That step was, however, considered to be full of danger to the girl’s life, and being brought back, to Bombay, she gave birth to a female child at her mother's bouse in September, TB7S. Subsequently to the birth of the child, the defendant denied, his paternity, and proceedings were thereupon taken against him in the Police Court for an allowance" for the maintenance of . the child. Common friends of the parties interfered with a view to put an end to the scandal which .threatened' to overtake the two families, and, after certain negotiations, Bs. 1500 were paid, it was alleged, on behalf of the defendant, for: ai compromiseof theprqceedings.andfurtheranote of hand was passed forßs. 800. The police proceedings" were dropped, and the parties. lived separately at their respective parents’ houses. The child died subsequently, and thereafter the pfesent suit was instituted. The defence was that the betrothal : contract made during the infancy of the defendant was invalid, and could not be held to be binding upon him ; and that sincehe "arrived at a!marriageable age he had declined to confirm the contract to marry the plaintiff. The defendant, further submitted that, even it the betrothal ga\m the plaintiff a right to. insist upon the marriage, 1 she had forfeited such right by reason of having given birth to a child'by some person, as he alleged, unknown to him ; and he finally denied having ever been on. affectionate terms' with plaintiff or having addressed any letters to her. It was also alleged on his behalf that 1 the plaintiff abandoned the police proceedings,’ and acknowledged herself obliged to.’ the defendantfpr permitting: bet: to .withdraw from them without; payment;of his costs ;-that she agreed not ;to, adopt similar proceedings" against him,; and that.he never, paid- a 1 price to induce her to abandon those proceedings.—' Mr.; Justice Bay ley. >vho< heard the 1 case, has taken time to consider-his decision.