## Facts

- A husband and wife married in 1945 and had no children.
- The wife left the husband in January 1952.
- In March 1952, the parties executed a written maintenance agreement under which:
  - The husband promised to pay the wife a weekly sum for her support during their joint lives so long as she lived chastely.
  - The wife promised to support herself from that sum, indemnify the husband against her debts, and not pledge the husband’s credit.
  - The wife promised not to commence or continue matrimonial proceedings other than a dissolution suit while payments were punctual; if the husband defaulted, she could pursue remedies as if the agreement had not been made.
- The husband later stopped paying and contended the agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration because, as a deserting spouse, the wife allegedly undertook no legally valuable obligation.
- The wife sued for arrears; the dispute turned on the legal sufficiency of consideration and alleged public-policy invalidity.

## Issues

1. Whether the wife’s undertakings (including forbearance from matrimonial proceedings, indemnity, and not pledging credit) constituted sufficient consideration for the husband’s promise to pay maintenance.
2. Whether the maintenance agreement was void as contrary to public policy for purportedly contracting around statutory matrimonial remedies and the court’s maintenance jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal ruled for the wife and enforced the agreement.
- The court held the wife supplied sufficient consideration, including valuable forbearance and other obligations that benefited the husband.
- The court rejected the public-policy challenge, concluding the agreement did not unlawfully oust the court’s jurisdiction and remained consistent with the statutory scheme.
- The husband was liable for the unpaid sums due under the agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Forbearance to bring or continue proceedings may be valid consideration where it provides a real benefit to the promisor, including avoidance of the expense and risk of litigation.
- Consideration may exist even when a promise overlaps with an existing duty, if the promisee confers a practical benefit or relinquishes a real legal position or option.
- Spousal maintenance agreements are not automatically void on public-policy grounds; they may be enforceable if they do not purport to exclude the court’s ultimate statutory authority and leave statutory remedies available upon default.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal enforced a marital maintenance agreement, holding that the wife’s forbearance and related undertakings supplied sufficient consideration and that the arrangement was not void on public-policy grounds because it did not exclude the court’s statutory powers.


Williams v. Williams, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 148 (C.A.)