We may also notice another judgment of this Court in Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd.

Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233, which was a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A Muslim wife with
her two daughters and a son filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. The trial court allowed the maintenance to the wife and children from her husband.
The husband after divorcing the wife filed application in the trial court seeking modification
of the order in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986. The trial court modified the order insofar as the grant of maintenance of
wife was concerned but maintained the order of maintenance to each of the three minor
children. The husband challenged the order by means of revision, which was dismissed by the
Revisional Court. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The
High Court accepted the claim of husband and relying on provision of Section 3(1)(b) of the
Act, 1986 held that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her previous
husband for her children only for a period of two years from the date of birth of the child
concerned. The High Court held that minor children were not entitled for maintenance under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. A special leave to appeal was filed questioning the judgment. This Court
dealing with Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Act, 1986 held that effect of a beneficial
legislation like Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear
provisions of a statute. This Court held that there is no conflict between the two provisions.

[Source: This para has been taken from Abhilasha v. Prakash, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 736,
PARA 29]

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/
2018/34880/34880_2018_35_1501_23965_Judgement_15-Sep-2020.pdf

Type 1A:

Q1. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that under Section 20 of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the right of an unmarried daughter to claim
maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute?

A) Sanjay J. Phagnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3382

B) Abhilasha v. Prakash, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 736
C) Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479
 D) Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233

CORRECT OPTION: B
EXPLANATION:

In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Abhilasha v. Prakash, 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 736, it was made clear that under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
right of an unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to
maintain herself is absolute. Such right is granted under the personal law which such
daughter has every right in law to enforce against her father. As such, right under Sub-section
3 of Section 20 of the said provisions is recognized to be existing to claim maintenance after
she attains majority till her marriage, from her father.

SOURCE: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/11/28/bom-hc-whether-
unmarried-daughter-who-is-major-by-age-entitled-to-claim-maintenance-from-father-
till-her-marriage-hc-explains-law-in-light-of-hindu-adoption-maintenance-act/

Type 4B:

Q2. Which of the following does not hold true regarding section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973?

A) Under Section 125 CrPC, the provision is available for interim maintenance which
means that during the pendency of an application in the court of law, the order may be
passed by the magistrate directing the husband to pay the monthly allowances to the
wife
B) If the wife has lived like a wife and the husband had treated her like a wife for all the
years before their separation, then, the wife cannot be denied maintenance by her
husband under section 125 CrPC
C) The court however does not have the power to exercise the powers under Section 125
CrPC if the wife has been granted the alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955
 D) Under section 125 CrPC, husband has to provide for the maintenance of his regardless
of the fact that the husband is sufficient enough to do so as the right od wife under this
section is absolute

CORRECT OPTION: D
EXPLANATION:

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the maintenance to the wife, child,
and parents. The court after the party has invoked Section 125 of the Code, may order the
respondent, that is the husband, to maintain the wife who is unable to maintain herself by
providing monthly maintenance to her. However, there is an exception in the provision. For
the purpose of providing maintenance to the wife, the husband has to be sufficient enough to
support his wife after the separation and at the same time, the wife must not be living in
adultery or living separately with her husband without any sufficient reasons. Even if they are
living separately in mutual consent, then also the wife will not be entitled to any sort of
maintenance. Whenever the judgment is passed in favor of the wife, the court has to make
sure that the husband has sufficient means to provide maintenance to the wife. The court also
needs to make sure that the wife after the separation does not have enough money to maintain
herself.

SOURCE: https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-scope-revision-section-125-crpc/

Type 5B:

Q3. B filed a suit for maintenance against A. In the first appeal, B claimed alimony
under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A second appeal was filed by B for
maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High
Court granted B’s appeal for alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, but rejected the appeal for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, as according to the direction of the Supreme Court, if the
first appeal has been filed for alimony under section 25 of the Act of 1955, then second
appeal for maintenance under section 125 of the Act of 1973 cannot be entertained. B
filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court
contending that the right of maintenance of the wife under section 125 of the Act of
1973, is absolute. Based on the given facts, which of the following is true?

A) The Supreme Court shall affirm the order of the High Court as per the directions of
the Supreme Court, a wife who has been granted alimony under section 20 of the
1955 Act, cannot claim maintenance under section 125 CrPC and since there is a
conflict between the two provisions, B cannot be granted maintenance under section
125 CrPC
B) The Supreme Court shall overrule the order of the High Court as right of maintenance
of a wife under section 125 CrPC is an absolute right and cannot be denied under any
circumstances
C) The Supreme Court shall overrule the order of the High court as the two provisions do
not conflict with each other and hence B cannot be denied maintenance under section
125 CrPC
D) The Supreme Court shall overrule the order of the High Court as when alimony under
section 20 of the 1955 Act has been claimed subsequently and maintenance under
section 125 CrPC has been claimed first by a wife, she is entitled to only maintenance
under section 125 CrPC

CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION:

The High Court accepted the claim of husband and relying on provision of Section 3(1)(b) of
the Act, 1986 held that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her previous
husband for her children only for a period of two years from the date of birth of the child
concerned. The High Court held that minor children were not entitled for maintenance under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. A special leave to appeal was filed questioning the judgment. This Court
dealing with Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Act, 1986 held that effect of a beneficial
legislation like Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear
provisions of a statute. This Court held that there is no conflict between the two provisions.

SOURCE:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/34880/34880_2018_35_1501_23965_Judgeme
nt_15-Sep-2020.pdf
Type 4B:

Q4. Which of the following statements is not correct regarding section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

A) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice
B) Section 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal
proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it
C) Section 482 can be exercised even when a specific remedy is provided by the statute
for the litigant
D) In a proceeding under section 482, the High Court will not enter into any finding of
facts, particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts
of two courts below

CORRECT OPTION: C
EXPLANATION:

It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no
other remedy is available to the litigant and NOT where a specific remedy is provided by the
statute. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its
powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

SOURCE:
https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-compensation/697362/overview-of-
section-482-crpc-vis-vis-the-landmark-judgments-of-the-supreme-court-of-india

Type 1A:

Q5. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that the right under
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is that of the mother to
claim for maintenance of her children for a period of two years from their date of birth,
and such shall be distinct and independent of the right to maintenance under CrPC to
minor children who are not able to maintain themselves?
 A) Bakulabai v. Gangaram, (1988) 1 SCC 537
B) Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, (2002) 5 SCC 422
C) Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233
D) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC 278

CORRECT OPTION: C
EXPLANATION:

Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim

Held:

The benefit under Section 125 of CrPC shall be available to all children irrespective of their
religion. The right under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is that
of the mother to claim for maintenance of her children for a period of two years from their
date of birth, and such shall be distinct and independent of the right to maintenance under
CrPC to minor children who are not able to maintain themselves.

Thus, maintenance under CrPC & 1986 Act runs parallel i.e., Muslim children are entitled to
maintenance under CrPC.

SOURCE: https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/landmark-judgements-on-maintenance-
of-children

Type 1B:

Q6. A party having grievances against an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, has the right to file a revision application in the court of law as
provided under?

A) Section 396 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

B) Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
C) Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
 D) Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION:

Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the proceedings are conducted
against the husbands, the court tends to decide the quantum of the maintenance, which has to
be paid to the wife after considering the circumstances of the case. Although the maintenance
declared by the court would satisfy the petitioners, what if the husband is not satisfied with
the order of the court. As appeal under Section 125 of the court is not maintainable, the legal
option which is available with the husband is to go for the revision proceedings. But it all
depends on the merits of the case, whether the party has the right to file for the revision
proceedings in the higher courts. But the jurisdiction of the higher courts is also limited, as
they have to take into consideration certain aspects before proceeding with the revision of the
case. One of the limitations is that the Higher Court cannot interfere when the evidence that
has been presented by both parties is taken into consideration. The power of revision is
available with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

SOURCE: https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-scope-revision-section-125-crpc/
#:~:text=The%20power%20of%20revision%20is,proceeding%20before%20any
%20inferior%20court.&text=In%20such%20cases%2C%20they%20need,the
%20revision%20of%20the%20case.