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

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]