Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.
In Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, long cohabitation as husband and wife raises:
Explanation. The Court held that long cohabitation raises a strong but rebuttable presumption of a valid marriage.
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal laid down conditions for a relationship to qualify as "in the nature of marriage" under:
Explanation. The four-condition test applies to protection under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
According to Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, a relationship where one partner is already married to someone else is:
Explanation. The Court held that a woman who knowingly lives with a married man is not covered, and asked Parliament to legislate for such women and children.
In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that:
Explanation. The Court held that an adult has an absolute right to marry a person of their own choice.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India laid down guidelines primarily against:
Explanation. Shakti Vahini laid down preventive, remedial, and punitive guidelines against honour crimes and khap panchayat interference.
In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court held that recognition of same-sex marriage:
Explanation. The Court held that creating a legal framework for same-sex marriage is a matter for Parliament.
The four conditions in D. Velusamy include all of the following EXCEPT:
Explanation. Payment of dowry is not one of the four Velusamy conditions.
Does Domestic Violence Act protection for a live-in partner amount to full marital status for all legal purposes?
Explanation. Such protection is a specific statutory remedy, not a general declaration of marital status.