ELIVERING judgment at an Infant Immigrant Breach of Promise of Marriage, 1968 Justice Arthur Chung dismissed the action and ruled that under the Labour  Ordinance an infant

immigrant is not liable for Breach of Promise . The Judge was trying the matter of Shirley Kalicharan v. Ramdeen Thakurdeen. The facts of the case disclosed that the plaintiff and the defendant are both descendants of Indian immigrants.

The former was twenty-two years old at the date of the trial and the latter was born on January 4, 1949. The plaintiff claimed that on 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 i.e., 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 in limine that neither action was maintainable.
HELD:
(i) As regards the action for seduction the person seduced could not institute proceedings;

(ii)   Although the Indian Labour Ordinance  empowers the male and female descendants of an immigrant to marry after the ages of  15 and 14years , 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.

Action dismissedAshton Chase for the plaintiff.K. Zaman Ali for the defendant.
Justice Arthur Chung:   In the present case the plaintiff claims against the defendant:-

(a)   Damages  in excess of the sum $500.00 for the breach of promise to marry by the defendant to the plaintiff, made on December 26, 1966, the said breach  being by repudiation by the defendant  on March 27, 1967, at Stanleytown, West Bank, Demerara.
(b) Further and in the alternative damages in excess of $500.00 for seduction of the plaintiff by the defendant on March 26, 1967 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 is 22-years-old.

2. The defendant  having courted the plaintiff  from March, 1966, promised to marry  her in June  1966, and again in December  1966, and in consideration  therefor  the plaintiff on both occasions agree to  marry the defendant.

3. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are 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 woman 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  agrees that no action is maintainable, but the court  can 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 submits that the plaintiff becomes sui juris at the age of 15 years under the Indian Labour Ordinance, Cap. 104.   In other words, he can marry after attaining the age of  16. He states that under s.3 of the Marriage Ordinance ,Cap. 164 consent  of the parents  is necessary  if the party is under twenty-one years of age , but in the present case  the parties are immigrants  and agreed to marry according to  Hindu  rites to be followed by registration of the marriage .

Under ss.137 and 138 the defendant has 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, Justice Chung said After referring to the number of years  when an  immigrant is  regarded as an infant Justice Chung added,  “In the circumstances,  I am 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. “In the circumstances the action is dismissed. Cost to the defendant fixed in the sum of $200.00. Action dismissed.“