Under Sharia law, an underage girl can only be married by her father or guardian. In one particular case, it was medically established that the girl had not yet reached the age of majority. [27] In addition, the kazi performing the marriage was aware of the girl`s minority and the resulting lack of capacity. It was found that the marriage was not valid and that the father was entitled to custody. The girl could not be forced to live with her husband, which violated the mandate of the Koran Sharif. In the case of Chappel v. Cooper,[14] Alderson B described the necessities as follows: “What is necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. First, food, clothing, accommodation and more…. Again, as the good culture of the mind is as useful as the support of the body, teaching in art or commerce, or intellectual, moral and religious education may also be necessary… His clothes (minors) may be thin or coarse depending on his rank; its training may vary depending on the station it is supposed to fill… Thus, luxury items are always excluded, although luxury items are allowed in some cases. It can be said that necessity covers not only things that are absolutely necessary for survival, but also those that are necessary for a reasonable existence.

As a result, a minor is allowed to enforce a contract that brings him a certain benefit and does not require him to assume an obligation. In the case of Srikakulam Subrahmanyam v. Kurra Shubha Rao,[7] it was found that the minor son and his mother were selling the land to the holders of the debt note in order to repay his father`s obligations and mortgages. Subsequently, the minor filed to recover the estate. It was found that the sale was in favour of the minor and that his mother (guardian) had the ability to enter into contracts on his behalf and, therefore, the sale of the land was deemed valid. In the case of Thakar Le v. Mt Putli,[8] it was decided that a minor is fit to purchase real estate and can take legal action to recover the property acquired at the time of the purchase money. Ordinary commercial contracts cannot be counted in the advantageous contract category. In the case of Cowern v. Nield, it was pointed out that “normal commercial contracts cannot be included in this category of advantageous contracts, the only contracts of an infant that can be applied are those relating to the infant`s person, as contracts through which he himself sources clothing, food or accommodation or a contract of marriage, learning and service.” [21] There are exceptions to the contract rule where the law is intended to guarantee contracts for the benefits of a minor and these exceptions apply in the form of beneficial contracts.