Even in States that have not adopted up TOAA/UPMAA, such as New York, duly executed marriage contracts enjoy the same presumption of legality as any other contract. [32] It is not necessary for a couple signing a marriage contract to use separate lawyers to represent them, as long as each party understands the agreement and voluntarily signs it with the intention of being bound by its terms. There is a strong public policy that favours parties that rank and decide their own interests through treaties. [33] There are no state or federal laws that require adults with contractual capacity to hire an attorney to enter into a marriage contract such as a marriage contract, with the exception of a California law that requires the parties to be represented by an attorney when support is limited by the agreement. [34] A marriage contract can be challenged if it is proven that the contract was signed under duress. [35] The signing of a pre-marital agreement under duress must be demonstrated by the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, it was found that a spouse`s assertion that she believed there would be no marriage if she did not sign a marriage contract where the marriage was only two weeks away and marriage plans had been made, was not sufficient to demonstrate coercion. [36] These agreements can be entered into under the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act provides that agreements are considered contracts if they are entered into with the free consent of the parties. [7] However, section 23 of the same Act provides that a contract may be null and void if it is contrary to the law or contrary to public order. [8] Unlike all other contractual laws, no quid pro quo is required, although a minority of courts draw attention to the marriage itself in return. Through a prenup, a spouse can completely renounce property rights, maintenance obligations or inheritance, as well as the share of choice and cannot obtain anything in his favor.

The choice of law is essential in prenups. The parties may choose that the law of the State in which they are married governs both the interpretation of the agreement and the distribution of property at the time of divorce. In the absence of a choice clause, the law of the place where the parties divorce does not determine the law of the State in which they were married. . . .