According to Chitty, a contract whose purpose is to curb or prevent part of the marriage, or to deter marriage, to the extent that it makes a person uncertain whether or not he or she can marry, is contrary to public policy. However, English law does not retain agreements that partially restrict marriage by separating from Indian law as stipulated in the Indian Contracts Act of 1872. In today`s world, for example, higher education often extends well beyond the age of majority. Now, if the Commission`s proposal has been followed, a parent can reach an agreement with their child not to marry until he has completed his studies. This would not only lead to a comprehensive education, but also to close it at a later stage where the parties would be more mature and the chances of obtaining a stable marriage would increase. By law, any agreement by which a person is deterred from practising a legal profession, commercial or commercial activity is null and void in this regard. It should be noted, however, that a violation of Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 was not invoked in apex Court by a partial restriction of marriage which, as part of the service contract, existed definitively before the Apex court. Example: A and B were rival traders in a locality of Calcutta. B agreed to pay A, a sum if he closed his store there. To do so, but B refused to pay him the money. The agreement was not reached, so the money could not be recovered. “public policy”: a vague and unsatisfactory notion that must lead to uncertainty and error in its application to the rights decision; it is capable of being understood in different senses; it can and does mean “political expediency” or what is best for the common good of the Community; and in this sense, there may be any variety of opinions, depending on the education, habits, talents and inclinations of any person who must decide whether an action is contrary to public order or not. Admitting it as a reason for a judicial decision would lead to greater uncertainty and confusion.
It is the province of the statesman, not the lawyer, to discuss and determine to the legislature what is best for the common good, and to guarantee it by appropriate decrees. It is the province of the judge to declare only the law; written from the statutes; the unwritten or universal right of the decisions of our predecessors and our existing courts, the authority recognized by the authors of texts and the principles that must be clearly established for reasonable reasons and only conclusions; Do not speculate on what it considers best, for the benefit of the Community. Some of these decisions may be based on the prevailing and just views of the common good; z.B the illegality of alliances to restrict marriage or trade. They are part of the recognized law, and that is why we are connected to it, but it does not allow us to define everything we think for the common good as a law and to prohibit everything we think differently. Although marriage customs were only partially part of the payment of a certain amount, they are at odds with Section 26 of the Contracts Act. The High Court expressed serious doubts as to whether Section 26 of the Contracts Act contained a partial or indirect restriction on marriage and was not persuaded by this argument. In simple terms, pubic policy refers to the policy of the government for the good of society, It can also be said that, if an agreement against any developed interest of the society or moral of the time, it can be said that against public policy and agreement will be considered non-aeig. It was held that an agreement could not be applied if it was contrary to the public interest [ii] or contrary to general legal policy.