Is breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong? Can compensation be awarded to such wrong?

 As a general rule, “a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong” as decided in Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 9733 6, February 19, 1993. 

In De Jesus v. Syquia, (1933)58 Phil 866 also the court held that the existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.

But, in Indian law the situation is different. The statement of law is contained in Dutt on Contract under Section 73 as: An express repudiation of a contract to many may be treated as a breach and gives rise to an action for damages at once.

Giving such notice at the earliest moment tends to mitigate, while delay in giving it necessarily aggravates, the injury to the party wronged. In case of seduction under a promise to marry the plaintiff and subsequent refusal to marry, the plaintiff is entitled not merely to the loss sustained by not becoming the wife of the defendant but to compensation for aggravation of that loss by reason of her prospects of marrying being materially ascended.

A suit lies to claim damages for breach of promise of marriage. Bombay High Court in Rose Fernandez v. Joseph Gonsalves, 85 Ind Cas 587 held that the breach of a promise of marriage has much more serious consequences in India in the case of girls, inasmuch as the chances of the girl making another good match are seriously affected.

Gujarat High Court in Miss Prema Koragokar v. Mustak Ahmed, AIR 1987 Gujarat 106 the learned Subordinate Judge held that breach of promise of marriage is actionable and held that towards the mental agony sustained by the plaintiff on account of the breach of promise of marriage and on account of the special damages sustained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and hence decreed the suit for that amount.

In Laxminarayan v. Sumitra Bai, AIR 1995 MP 86 Madhya Pradesh High Court said that where under the garb of promise to marry, the girl is lured and subjected to physical criminal conversation, resulting in pregnancy, the extent of damages will differ, on various counts, such as: physical pain, indignity, chances of marriage becoming dim, social stigma.

In Abdul Razak v. Mahomed Huisen, (1917) 19 BOMLR 164 a Muslim father of the bridegroom sued the father of the bride for damages for breach of his contract to give his daughter in marriage. That was a case of a contract between the two parents, and Mr. Justice Kemp decreed the suit but held that the measure of damage must be based on the damage suffered by the plaintiff’s father, and not on the damage suffered by the prospective bridegroom in the loss of a wife.