Question:

X, a married woman, agreed to live in adultery with B and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, B agreed to pay X Rs. 500 per month for living in adultery and Rs. 500 per month for housekeeping. The agreement is

Show Hint

Ask whether the lawful housekeeping promise can be cut away from the immoral one. Section 24 makes the whole agreement void when the unlawful part cannot be severed.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Valid
  • Void
  • Void as to the first object but valid with respect to the second object
  • Unlawful as being opposed to public policy
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
X promises two things: to live in adultery with B and to keep house for him. B promises two payments, Rs. 500 a month for the first and Rs. 500 a month for the second. We must decide the fate of the whole agreement.

Step 2: The rule on unlawful objects, Section 23:
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act says the consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law, defeats the provisions of any law, is fraudulent, involves injury to person or property, or is immoral or opposed to public policy. Every agreement whose object or consideration is unlawful is void.
An agreement by a married woman to live in adultery is plainly immoral, so this object is unlawful. Housekeeping, taken alone, is a perfectly lawful service.

Step 3: The rule on mixed objects, Section 24:
Section 24 handles exactly this situation. It says that if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any one or any part of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.
So the question becomes whether the lawful part can be cut away from the unlawful part. Severance is allowed only when the two parts are truly separate and independent. If they are woven into a single bargain, the whole thing falls.

Step 4: Applying the rule, and the case on these facts:
These facts are drawn from Alice Mary Hill v. William Clarke, where the court held that the whole agreement was void. The reasoning is that the two promises were not really separable. The housekeeping was part of one composite arrangement, tied to the immoral cohabitation, and B would not have taken her as housekeeper apart from that arrangement. Splitting the money into two sums of Rs. 500 does not turn one bargain into two.
Because the unlawful part cannot be severed, Section 24 applies and the entire agreement is void.

Step 5: Why the other options fail:
Option (A), Valid, is out at once. An agreement to live in adultery is immoral, and Section 23 makes such an agreement void.
Option (C) is the trap. It assumes the two objects can be severed and the housekeeping half saved. Severance fails here because the promises form one indivisible bargain, which is precisely what the court held on these facts.
Option (D) states a reason rather than the legal result asked for. The question asks what the agreement is, and the answer under Sections 23 and 24 is that it is void. Immorality is the ground; void is the consequence. Between a ground and a consequence, the option that names the status of the agreement is the better answer.

Final Answer:
The unlawful object cannot be severed from the lawful one, so under Section 24 the whole agreement is void. The answer is option (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Contract Law Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions