Court case(1910) 37 IA 152

The appellant agreed with the father of the respondent, on the occasion of the marriage of his son to her, that he would pay her Rs 500 a month in perpetuity as kharch-i-pandan (betel-box or pin-money) and charged certain immovable property with the payment. Both parties to the marriage were minors at the time. The couple later separated; the husband's father stopped paying, and the wife sued him for the arrears.

The Privy Council held that she could. The agreement specifically charged immovable property with the allowance and she was the only person beneficially entitled; she was therefore in the position of a beneficiary under a trust or charge and could enforce it in her own right. Mr Ameer Ali observed that the English rule in Tweddle v. Atkinson should not be applied to Indian family arrangements of this kind, which are common among communities where the wife may be a minor and the contract is necessarily made by elders on her behalf.