These agreements can be covered by the Indian Contract Act 1872. Section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act states that agreements must be considered contracts when they are concluded by the free consent of the parties.  Section 23 of the same statute states that a contract may be non-sour if it is immoral or contrary to public policy.  In practice, projects can violate canon law in different ways. For example, they cannot subject a marriage to a condition of the future. The code of canon law provides that “a marriage on a condition for the future cannot be concluded with validity.” (CIC 1102) The courts will not require a person to do all the housework or to have the children raised in a particular religion.  In recent years, some couples have included social media provisions in their marriage contracts and have set rules on what can be posted on social media during the marriage, and in case the marriage is dissolved.  Currently, 28 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) or the Premartal Agreement Uniform Act (UPMAA). The UPAA was adopted in 1983 by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) to promote greater uniformity and predictability between state laws with respect to these contracts in an increasingly temporary society. The UPAA was partially enacted to ensure that an effective prenup in one state is awarded by the courts of another state where the couple could obtain a divorce.
In 2012, UPMAA was created by the ULC to clarify and modernize the inconsistent laws of the state and create a coherent approach for all marital agreements and post-nuptial agreements that recently a movement supporting an additional marriage agreement has developed in some modern Orthodox circles. This is a reaction to a growing number of cases where the husband refuses to grant a religious divorce. In such cases, local authorities are not in a position to intervene, both for the sake of separation of church and state and because some halachic problems would arise. This situation leaves the woman in a state of aginut where she cannot remarry. To remedy this situation, the movement promotes a marital agreement in which the couple agrees to file their divorce, should it occur, before a rabbinical court. A marital agreement is different from the historical marriage regime, which was not primarily about the effects of divorce, but on the constitution and maintenance of dynastic families or a divorce regime established by the parties as part of the dissolution of their marriage. In the past, couples have entered into pre-marriage agreements with some uncertainty as to their validity. Today, the presumed validity and applicability of such agreements is no longer at issue in states that have adopted UPAA/UPMAA, including Florida, Virginia, New Jersey and California.  Unlike all other contract laws, no review is required, although a minority of courts marry in return. Through a prenup, a spouse can completely waive property rights, support or inheritance, as well as the voting share, and can get nothing for it.