{"id":84593,"date":"2025-06-01T02:39:34","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T02:39:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=84593"},"modified":"2025-06-01T02:39:34","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T02:39:34","slug":"in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/","title":{"rendered":"In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th"},"content":{"rendered":"

In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act 1986, was upheld by the Supreme Court of India ?<\/p>\n

[amp_mcq option1=”Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum” option2=”Danial Latifi v. Union of India” option3=”Mary Roy v. State of Kerala” option4=”Shankari Prasad v. Union of India” correct=”option2″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n
UPSC CDS-1 – 2016<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Download PDF<\/a>Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001).
\n<\/section>\n
\n– The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted by the Parliament to overturn the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Shah Bano case (Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985), which granted maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
\n– The 1986 Act sought to limit the divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance from her husband primarily to the period of iddat.
\n– In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted its provisions, particularly Section 4, to mean that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance from her former husband, not just during the iddat period, but for the rest of her life or until she remarries. This interpretation effectively ensured a maintenance right similar to the Shah Bano judgment, albeit within the framework of the 1986 Act.
\n<\/section>\n
\nMary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986) was a case related to the property rights of Syrian Christian women in Kerala. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) was an early case regarding the Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights.
\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act 1986, was upheld by the Supreme Court of India ? [amp_mcq option1=”Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum” option2=”Danial Latifi v. Union of India” option3=”Mary Roy v. State of Kerala” option4=”Shankari Prasad v. Union of … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionIn which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1087],"tags":[1098,1099,1180],"class_list":["post-84593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-cds-1","tag-1098","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","tag-the-supreme-court","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\nIn which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001). - The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted by the Parliament to overturn the Supreme Court's verdict in the Shah Bano case (Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985), which granted maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - The 1986 Act sought to limit the divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance from her husband primarily to the period of iddat. - In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted its provisions, particularly Section 4, to mean that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance from her former husband, not just during the iddat period, but for the rest of her life or until she remarries. This interpretation effectively ensured a maintenance right similar to the Shah Bano judgment, albeit within the framework of the 1986 Act.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001). - The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted by the Parliament to overturn the Supreme Court's verdict in the Shah Bano case (Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985), which granted maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - The 1986 Act sought to limit the divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance from her husband primarily to the period of iddat. - In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted its provisions, particularly Section 4, to mean that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance from her former husband, not just during the iddat period, but for the rest of her life or until she remarries. This interpretation effectively ensured a maintenance right similar to the Shah Bano judgment, albeit within the framework of the 1986 Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T02:39:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th","description":"The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001). - The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted by the Parliament to overturn the Supreme Court's verdict in the Shah Bano case (Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985), which granted maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - The 1986 Act sought to limit the divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance from her husband primarily to the period of iddat. - In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted its provisions, particularly Section 4, to mean that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance from her former husband, not just during the iddat period, but for the rest of her life or until she remarries. This interpretation effectively ensured a maintenance right similar to the Shah Bano judgment, albeit within the framework of the 1986 Act.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th","og_description":"The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001). - The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted by the Parliament to overturn the Supreme Court's verdict in the Shah Bano case (Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985), which granted maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - The 1986 Act sought to limit the divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance from her husband primarily to the period of iddat. - In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted its provisions, particularly Section 4, to mean that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance from her former husband, not just during the iddat period, but for the rest of her life or until she remarries. This interpretation effectively ensured a maintenance right similar to the Shah Bano judgment, albeit within the framework of the 1986 Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T02:39:34+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/","name":"In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T02:39:34+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T02:39:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001). - The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted by the Parliament to overturn the Supreme Court's verdict in the Shah Bano case (Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985), which granted maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - The 1986 Act sought to limit the divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance from her husband primarily to the period of iddat. - In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted its provisions, particularly Section 4, to mean that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance from her former husband, not just during the iddat period, but for the rest of her life or until she remarries. This interpretation effectively ensured a maintenance right similar to the Shah Bano judgment, albeit within the framework of the 1986 Act.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-cases-the-constitutional-validity-of-th\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC CDS-1","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-cds-1\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}