Question

Based on the given excerpt from the judgment, which of the following judgments is related to enforcement of orders of maintenance and successive claims by parties in matrimonial proceedings?

• A. Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1003.
• B. Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
• C. Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329.
• D. Manju Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 628.
• A. Maintenance Pendente lite, expenses of proceedings, permanent alimony and maintenance.
• B. Expenses of proceedings, permanent alimony and maintenance.
• C. Maintenance Pendente lite, permanent alimony and maintenance.
• D. Maintenance Pendente lite, expenses of proceedings, permanent alimony.
• A. The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
• B. The Special Marriage Act, 1954.
• C. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
• D. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
• A. Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff of the amount awarded in previous proceedings.
• B. If the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
• C. It is not mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding.
• D. The affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities as applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before any court, as the case may be.
• A. It provides for maintenance to wife/wives, illegitimate and legitimate children and parents.
• B. A wife shall not be entitled to receive maintenance as per this provision from her husband if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
• C. A magistrate has been given wide powers under this provision.
• D. As per the explanation under this provision, wife does not include a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband but includes a woman who has remarried.
• A. It is a special legislation which was enacted to provide for maintenance to wife during the subsistence of the marriage.
• B. The Supreme Court of India considered the interplay between the claim for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3 SCC 406.
• C. Section 18 of the Act provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.
• D. As per Section 18 of the Act, a Hindu wife is not entitled to make a claim for a separate residence from her husband, without forfeiting her right to maintenance.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Identify the core issue from the excerpt.
The excerpt highlights:
- Rationale for granting maintenance from the date of application.
- Objective: to provide immediate financial relief to the wife to overcome hardships after separation.
- Major problem: enforcement delays in maintenance orders, causing the object of the law to be defeated.
Step 2: Link with a known Supreme Court case.
In \textbf{Rajnesh v. Neha (2021)}, the Supreme Court: - Laid down comprehensive guidelines for determining quantum of maintenance.
- Directed that maintenance should ideally be from the date of application.
- Addressed enforcement mechanisms to prevent prolonged execution proceedings.
- Dealt with multiple claims for maintenance under different statutes.
Step 3: Eliminate incorrect options.
- (A) Smriti Madan Kansagra – relates to child custody and guardianship, not maintenance enforcement.
- (C) Roshina T. – concerns property possession disputes.
- (D) Manju Saxena – relates to service law and not matrimonial maintenance.
Step 4: Conclude.
Given the focus on maintenance guidelines, enforcement, and prevention of multiplicity of proceedings, Rajnesh v. Neha fits exactly.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 2

The excerpt discusses granting maintenance from the date of application, the financial hardship a dependent spouse faces, and the difficulty of enforcing maintenance orders through prolonged execution proceedings, so the task is to match this to the correct judgment.

1. Option A: Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra concerns child custody and guardianship arrangements, not maintenance enforcement or successive maintenance claims.
2. Option B: Rajnesh v. Neha is the case in which the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive, pan-India guidelines on maintenance, covering the date from which maintenance runs, disclosure of assets, avoidance of overlapping claims across different statutes, and mechanisms to prevent enforcement delays, which mirrors the excerpt closely.
3. Option C: Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. deals with possession and property disputes rather than maintenance enforcement.
4. Option D: Manju Saxena v. Union of India is a service-law matter concerning government employment, unconnected with matrimonial maintenance.

Since only Rajnesh v. Neha addresses the timing of maintenance, enforcement bottlenecks, and successive claims described in the excerpt, it is the source case.

Hence, the correct answer is Option B: Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

Answer 3

Step 1: Relevant provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Section 24: Maintenance Pendente lite (during pendency of proceedings) and expenses of proceedings.
- Section 25: Permanent alimony and maintenance after decree.
Step 2: Elimination of incorrect options.
- (B) Misses maintenance pendente lite.
- (C) Misses expenses of proceedings.
- (D) Misses maintenance after decree.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Only option (A) contains all the reliefs expressly provided under the Act.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 4

The question tests which combination of reliefs is completely and correctly listed as available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1. Option A: lists maintenance pendente lite, expenses of proceedings, and permanent alimony and maintenance together. Section 24 of the Act provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings during the pendency of litigation, while Section 25 separately provides for permanent alimony and maintenance after the proceedings conclude, so this option captures all the reliefs the Act actually grants.
2. Option B: leaves out maintenance pendente lite, which is expressly available under Section 24, so this list is incomplete.
3. Option C: leaves out expenses of proceedings, also guaranteed under Section 24, making this option incomplete as well.
4. Option D: leaves out the permanent maintenance component that follows the decree under Section 25, so it too is missing a relief the Act provides.

Only the option that includes all three categories, interim maintenance and litigation costs under Section 24 together with permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25, correctly represents the full scheme of the Act.

Hence, the correct answer is Option A: Maintenance Pendente lite, expenses of proceedings, permanent alimony and maintenance.

Answer 5

Step 1: Check each statute.
- (A) Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 — contains maintenance provisions.
- (B) Special Marriage Act, 1954 — has provisions for alimony and maintenance.
- (D) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 — provides for maintenance rights after divorce.
Step 2: Identify the exception.
(C) The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — primarily penal in nature; focuses on prevention, prohibition, and annulment of child marriages; does not have general spousal maintenance provisions.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 6

The question asks which of the four statutes does NOT contain any provision relating to maintenance.

1. Option A: The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 contains specific sections empowering courts to award alimony and maintenance to a spouse, so it does deal with maintenance.
2. Option B: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 similarly contains provisions for alimony pendente lite and permanent alimony and maintenance, so this statute also covers maintenance.
3. Option C: The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is essentially a preventive and penal statute aimed at prohibiting, annulling and punishing child marriages; its focus is on protecting minors from being married off, and it does not lay down a general maintenance scheme for spouses.
4. Option D: The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, despite being primarily a criminal statute penalising triple talaq, expressly entitles the woman to seek maintenance for herself and dependent children, so maintenance is very much a feature of this Act.

Since maintenance provisions exist in the Parsi, Special Marriage, and 2019 Acts but not in the child-marriage statute, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act stands apart.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Answer 7

Step 1: Source of directions.
The case Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) laid down uniform guidelines for maintenance cases, including disclosure obligations and coordination between different proceedings.
Step 2: Directions given by SC.
- Adjustment/setoff to avoid double maintenance (A) — direction given.
- Any modification to be sought in the same proceeding (B) — direction given.
- Mandatory filing of affidavit of assets/liabilities in all cases (D) — direction given.
Step 3: Identify what is not a direction.
(C) claims disclosure is “not mandatory” — opposite of the Court’s actual guideline, which made disclosure mandatory. Thus, (C) is incorrect.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 8

The question asks which of the listed statements is NOT a direction actually given by the Supreme Court in its guidelines on maintenance and successive claims.

1. Option A: The Court directed that where successive maintenance claims are filed under different statutes, the amount already awarded should be adjusted or set off against the later award, so this is indeed one of the directions given.
2. Option B: The Court also directed that any need to modify or vary an earlier maintenance order should be pursued in the same proceeding rather than through a fresh one, so this too is a direction actually laid down.
3. Option C: This statement claims disclosure of prior proceedings is optional. In fact the Court made the opposite direction, requiring parties to disclose earlier proceedings and orders in any subsequent maintenance application, so describing this disclosure as not mandatory misstates the guideline.
4. Option D: The Court did direct that an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including those already pending, so this is also an accurate direction.

Since A, B and D each correctly restate an actual direction while C reverses the disclosure requirement into its opposite, C is the statement that does not belong.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: It is not mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding.

Answer 9

Step 1: Scope of Section 125 CrPC.
Section 125 provides a quick remedy for maintenance to wives, legitimate/illegitimate minor children, and dependent parents. The term “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
Step 2: Why option (D) is incorrect.
Option (D) wrongly states that “wife” includes a woman who has remarried. The law expressly excludes a woman who has remarried from claiming maintenance from her former husband.
Step 3: Verification of other options.
- (A) Correct — matches the statutory provision.
- (B) Correct — lists statutory disqualifications.
- (C) Correct — magistrates have broad discretion to order maintenance.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 10

The question asks which statement about Section 125 CrPC is NOT correct.

1. Option A: Section 125 does empower a magistrate to order maintenance for a wife or wives, legitimate and illegitimate minor children, and parents unable to maintain themselves, so this statement is accurate.
2. Option B: The provision does disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance if she is living in adultery, unreasonably refuses to live with her husband, or the parties are living separately by mutual consent, so this is also correctly stated.
3. Option C: Magistrates exercising jurisdiction under this section have been given considerable discretion in assessing need and quantum, so this statement holds true as well.
4. Option D: The Explanation to Section 125 defines "wife" to include a woman divorced by, or who has obtained a divorce from, her husband, but only so long as she has not remarried. This option wrongly states that a remarried woman is still included within the definition, which contradicts the statutory language.

Since A, B and C track the section faithfully while D inverts the remarriage exclusion into an inclusion, D is the incorrect statement.

Hence, the correct answer is Option D: As per the explanation under this provision, wife does not include a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband but includes a woman who has remarried.

Answer 11

Step 1: Understanding Section 18.
Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 gives a Hindu wife the statutory right to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. Section 18(2) also lists grounds for separate residence without forfeiting maintenance (e.g., cruelty, desertion, leprosy).
Step 2: Elimination of incorrect options.
- (A) Misleading — while it provides for maintenance to wife, it also covers dependents, widowed daughters-in-law, and parents; not limited to “subsistence of marriage”.
- (B) True statement about a case but does not directly define the Act’s provision — question asks for a correct statutory provision.
- (D) Incorrect — the Act allows separate residence without forfeiting maintenance in certain cases.
Step 3: Conclusion.
(C) directly reflects Section 18(1) wording and is the most accurate statutory statement.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 12

The question asks which statement about the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is correct.

1. Option A: The Act is not confined to maintenance "during the subsistence of the marriage" alone; it also covers maintenance of widowed daughters-in-law, aged parents, and dependants, and continues to apply in circumstances beyond an ongoing marriage, so describing it this narrowly is inaccurate.
2. Option B: Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan is indeed a real decision touching on maintenance, but it examines the interplay between maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act and permanent alimony, not specifically the relationship with the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in the manner this option frames it, so it does not correctly capture what that judgment stands for.
3. Option C: Section 18(1) of the Act expressly states that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime, which is a direct and accurate restatement of the statutory text.
4. Option D: Section 18(2) actually permits a Hindu wife to live separately without forfeiting her claim to maintenance where specific grounds such as cruelty, desertion, or the husband's conversion or bigamy exist, so stating that she is never entitled to a separate residence claim is incorrect.

Only the statement reproducing the wording of Section 18(1) survives scrutiny, since the other three either misstate the Act's scope or its treatment of separate residence.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: Section 18 of the Act provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.