HomeQuizzesCrPC 2 – Maintenance / Preventive Proceedings CrPC 2 – Maintenance / Preventive Proceedings Leave a Comment / By / Welcome to your CrPC 2 - Maintenance / Preventive Proceedings 1. In which one of the following cases the Supreme Court has held that a married daughter with independent sufficient means of her own is liable to maintain her father or mother under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ? [H.P. JS 2007-I,2017,2015,UPAPO (Special )2007] a) Sundeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary b) Vijay Manohar Arbat v. Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai c) Rewati Bai v. Jogeshwar d) K.V. Rudraian v. B.S. Mudda Gangamma Hint 2.In which of the following cases it was held by the Supreme Court that Sec. 125 Cr.P.C was applicable to all irrespective of their religion? [UJS 2002,2012,PJS 2019] a) Mohd. Amhed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum b) Mod. Umar Khan v. Gulshan Begum c) Subana alias Saira Banu v. A.M. Abdul Gafoor d) Sirajmohamed Khan v. Hafizunnissa Yaseen Kahm Hint 3. A mere plea of divorce would not be sufficient to disentitle a muslim wife from claiming maintenance under section 125 was laid down in - [M.P. HJS 2010] a) Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. b) Iqbal Bano v. State of U.P. c) Mohd.Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum d) Danial Latifi v. Union of India Hint 4. A minor child claims maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C , 1973 from his father who is in U.S.A. The Court directed the Magistrate to issue warrant for recovery of amount of maintenance from concerned parents in U.S.A. through Indian Ambassador in U.S.A. It was also held by the Court that if father fails to send the amount of maintenance, then the Magistrate will proceed according to law. This was held in : [UJS 2006] Priyal v. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj, 2000 Sargam Bonia Sreenu v. Kamal, 2000 Din Dayal v. Arun Kumar, 2000 Ashok Kumar v. Kirpal Singh, 2000 Hint 5. In which of the following judgments, has the Supreme Court ruled that the victim of a bigamous marriage is entitled to maintenance ? a) Pinkin Mahipatra Rawl v. State of Gujrat b) Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse c) Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma d) None of the above Hint 6. In which case Supreme Court held that only a legally wedded wife can claim maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code? [UK CJ 2011] Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujrat S.K. Butt v. State of U.P. Rajeev Choudhary v. State Janak Singh v. State of U.P. Hint 7. In which of the following cases it was held that "The amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against the alimony amount awarded in matrimonial proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and was not to be given over and above the same ." ? [UP APO 2011] a) Satya v. Teja Singh b) Yamuna Bai v. Anant Rao c) Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Choudhary d) Rewati Bai v. Jogeshwer Hint 8. In which case the Supreme Court has determined that under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a married daughter having sufficient, independent and self means, is liable for maintenance of her parents ? [U.P.A.P.O.2019] a) Revati Bai v. Jageshwar b) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram c) Sudeep Chawdhary v. Radha Chaudhary d) Bhure v. Gomti Bai Hint 9. In which of the following cases, it was held that provisions of chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. being in public interest are not violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. [U.P. APO 2006] a) Ram Charan v, State b) Shiv narain v. Ban Mali c) Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr d) Ram Prasad v. Emperor Hint 10. In which of the following cases, section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been held constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court ? [UJS 2006] Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Mangare Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Superintendent of Central Prison v. Ram Manhor Lohiya Mithilesh Kumar v. Bindh Wasni Hint 11. Order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is amenable to writ jurisdiction on violation of any Fundamental Rights. This was held in case of : [UJS 2006] a) Dibakar Nail v. Pushpalata Patel, (1997) 3 Crimes 107 b) Gopalachari v. State of Kerala , 1981 SCR 338 c) Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. , 1981 SC 2198 d) Shelam Ramesh v. State of A.P., (1998) 8 SCC 369 Hint 12. Which one of the following cases is related to section 144 Cr.P.C. ? [U.P.APO 2011,2019] Ram Avtar v. State of U.P. State of Karnataka v. Parveen Togadia Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi Iqbal Ahmad v. State of U.P. Hint 13. In which of the following cases it was held that "shoot to kill" executive instruction for violation of prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr.P.C. is ultra vires to Section 144, Cr.P.C. and goes against Article 21 of the Constitution of India : a) Bhagirathi Shrichandan v. Damodar, 1987 Cr LJ 63 b) Thavaziyappan v. Periasamy Nadar, 1992 Cr LJ 283 c) Jayanti Lal Mohan Lal Patel v. Eric Renison, 1975 Cr LJ 661 (Guj) d) Padam Pradhan, 1982 Cr LJ 534 Hint 14. "The object of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is to ward-off danger of breach of peace and not to determine the title." It was observed in the case of [UP APO 2006] a) Union of India v. Azibun Nessa Khatoon b) Nandi Ram v. Chandi Ram c) Roshan Lal v. State d) Ramadhin v. Shayama Devi Hint 15.The Code of Criminal Procedure which contains some general provisions to cover ordinary situations came to be regarded as an instrument to combat pollution in 1980s and was utilized in one of the following cases : [NET (Law),2018] a) Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar b) Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India c) A.P. State Pollution Control Board v. Prof M.V. Naidu d) Municipal Council Ratlam v. Vardichand Hint 1 out of 3 Time is Up! Time's up