( 1 ) A woman was sold, mercifully not in an open market. Because the sale failed, the buyer has sued for refund of the consideration. Was sale not traffic in human beings, prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution ? May be, the sale has not attracted, in terms, the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for short, the Immoral Traffic Act. But, the moot question is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed, invoking Section 65 of the Contract Act, for short, the 'act'.

( 2 ) BOTH the Courts below having decreed plaintiff's suit, defendant has appealed to this Court. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The question, therefore, would also be whether such custom does at all survive after the Constitution case into force. Plaintiff's case was that she was Dangi by caste and had a son named Laxman who could not be married at an early age according to custom prevalent among people of Dangi caste. Because her son, who was aged 24 years, had lost all hopes of marriage, she contracted with the defendant to arrange a Dangi woman for her son who could be kept by him as his mistress. The defendant was paid Rs. 4,000/- for a