Pre-nuptial restraint on matrimonial home is unenforceable where it conflicts with Hindu marital duties and public policy.

A pre-nuptial covenant cannot override the incidents of Hindu marriage by permanently restraining the husband from choosing the matrimonial home. Under Hindu law, the wife's duty to reside with her husband at the place he chooses is not a right that can be contracted away before marriage, and an agreement that subordinates the husband to the wife's parental family is opposed to public policy. The agreement was therefore ineffective as a defence to a suit for enforcement of conjugal rights, and the husband remained entitled to seek cohabitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a pre-nuptial agreement by which the husband undertook not to remove his wife from her parental home barred a suit by him for enforcement of conjugal rights.

Analysis: The marital rights and duties of Hindu spouses are governed by Hindu Law except where altered by legislation. Under that law, the wife's duty is to reside with her husband wherever he chooses to live, and that duty cannot be contracted away by an agreement made at or before marriage. A pre-nuptial covenant that permanently restrains the husband from choosing the matrimonial home, or places him in perpetual subordination to the wife's family, defeats the legal incidents of marriage and is opposed to public policy. The Court therefore treated the agreement as ineffective to defeat the husband's claim for cohabitation.

Conclusion: The agreement was not a valid defence, and the husband was entitled to enforce his conjugal rights.

---