– How the Indian Labour Ordinance worked against a woman who sued her fiancé for breaking their engagement to marry another woman

IN 1968, Shirley Kallicharran, a descendant of Indian immigrants, sued immigrant Ramdeen Thakurdeen for breach of promise and seduction.
She failed because the Indian Labour Ordinance, passed for the benefit of immigrants, did not impose a liability on an infant in the sense of making him liable in an action for breach of promise of marriage.
The action was dismissed by Justice Arthur Chung.
The plaintiff and the defendant were both descendants of Indian Immigrants. The former was 22 years old at the date of her trial and the latter was born on the January 4, 1949. The plaintiff claimed that on the December 26, 1966 she and the defendant had agreed to marry, but that the latter repudiated that agreement on March 27, 1967. She also claimed that the day before, that is, March 26, he had seduced her.
In the result, she filed the present action claiming damages for breach of promise and seduction. Counsel for the defendant submitted that neither action was maintainable.
It was held that, as regard the action for seduction, the person seduced could not institute proceedings.
It was also held that although the Indian Labour Ordinance empowered the male and female descendants of an immigrant to marry after the ages of fifteen and fourteen years, respectively , without parental consent , under the general law an infant would not ordinarily be liable for any breach of contract which had been entered into before attaining the age of 21, and, accordingly, the defendant would not be liable for a breach of the marriage agreement.
Ashton Chase represented the plaintiff while K. Zaman Alim represented the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed damages in excess of the sum of $500 for the breach of promise to marry, the said breach being by repudiation by the defendant at Stanleytown, West Bank, Demerara, in Guyana.

At the trial the following facts were agreed on:-
1. The defendant was born on the 4th day of June, 1949 as per his birth certificate. The plaintiff was twenty-two years old.
2. The defendant, having courted the plaintiff from March 1966, promised to marry her in June, 1966, and again in consideration therefor the plaintiff on both occasions agreed to marry the defendant.
3. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were Hindus and agreed to marry according to Hindu rites to be followed by registration of the marriage.
4. The defendant subsequently repudiated both of the above promises and refused to marry the plaintiff.
5. The defendant lawfully married another lady in April, 1967.
6. The grandparents of both the plaintiff and the defendant came from India to this country as immigrants under the immigration fund.
7. The defendant seduced the plaintiff in March, 1967.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that on those facts the action should be dismissed since :-
(a) The defendant, being an infant, cannot be sued for breach of promise of marriage.
(b) An action for seduction cannot be brought by the plaintiff.

With regards to the claim for seduction, counsel for the plaintiff agreef that no action was maintainable but the Court could take into account the fact that the plaintiff was seduced when awarding damages to the claim for breach of promise of marriage.
As to the claim for breach of promise of marriage , he submitted that the plaintiff became sui juris at the age of 15 years under the Indian Labour Ordinance, Chapter 104. In other words, he may marry after attaining the age of 16.
He stated that under s.3 of the Marriage Ordinance, Chapter 164, consent of the parents was necessary if the party was under 21 years of age; the parties were immigrants and agreed to marry according to Hindu rites to be followed by registration of the marriage.
Under ss. 137 and 138, the defendant had the capacity to marry without the consent of his parents. In those circumstances, he should be treated as an adult and therefore can be sued on an action for breach of promise of marriage.
Even though the Indian Labour Ordinance gave an immigrant the right to marry without the consent of his or her parents it did not make him an adult so as to make him liable in an action for breach of promise of marriage.
In the circumstances, the Judge was of the opinion that the Indian Labour Ordinance was passed for the benefit of immigrants and does not impose a liability on an infant in the sense of making him liable in an action for breach of promise of marriage.
The action was thus dismissed.