Legal Reasoning Sectional Test 02 | Additional Study Material for CLAT PDF Download

 Page 2


w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
Mock Test Solutions in English
Questions
1. Directions: Study the following passage and answer the given questions.
Passage
The Government of India enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
in an attempt to further the constitutional mandate of securing the interests of elderly under Article 41 of
the Constitution of India. The protections accorded to the elderly under the 2007 Act are of particular
contemporary significance, especially when Delhi High Court has recently taken judicial notice of the fact
that domestic violence cases in India have seen a significant increase during the nationwide lockdown
imposed by the government.
In cases of disputes between the parents (or parents-in-law) and children, the elderly may be concerned
with peaceful enjoyment of their property or in other cases, demand a fair sum from their kin towards
maintenance for a decent lifestyle. Safeguards under the 2007 Act and judicial interpretations expanding
its scope are as under:
The 2007 Act enables any ‘Senior Citizen’ (defined as a citizen of India who has attained the age of sixty
years or above) or a ‘Parent’ to make an application for ‘maintenance’ (defined as including provisions for
food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment) before a ‘Maintenance Tribunal’.
Such an application can be preferred at the instance of:
(i) A (childless) Senior Citizen against any of his relatives (defined as any legal heir of the childless senior
citizen who is not a minor and would inherit his property after his death) or
(ii) A parent or grand-parent against one or more of his children not being a minor.
The 2007 Act therefore casts an obligation on persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives.
Page 3


w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
Mock Test Solutions in English
Questions
1. Directions: Study the following passage and answer the given questions.
Passage
The Government of India enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
in an attempt to further the constitutional mandate of securing the interests of elderly under Article 41 of
the Constitution of India. The protections accorded to the elderly under the 2007 Act are of particular
contemporary significance, especially when Delhi High Court has recently taken judicial notice of the fact
that domestic violence cases in India have seen a significant increase during the nationwide lockdown
imposed by the government.
In cases of disputes between the parents (or parents-in-law) and children, the elderly may be concerned
with peaceful enjoyment of their property or in other cases, demand a fair sum from their kin towards
maintenance for a decent lifestyle. Safeguards under the 2007 Act and judicial interpretations expanding
its scope are as under:
The 2007 Act enables any ‘Senior Citizen’ (defined as a citizen of India who has attained the age of sixty
years or above) or a ‘Parent’ to make an application for ‘maintenance’ (defined as including provisions for
food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment) before a ‘Maintenance Tribunal’.
Such an application can be preferred at the instance of:
(i) A (childless) Senior Citizen against any of his relatives (defined as any legal heir of the childless senior
citizen who is not a minor and would inherit his property after his death) or
(ii) A parent or grand-parent against one or more of his children not being a minor.
The 2007 Act therefore casts an obligation on persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives.
w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
In subsequent judicial decisions the scope of the legislation has even enlarged to even confer the rights of
eviction upon the elderly. In a judgement it was held that the mere fact that parents do not wish to have
their children staying with them is enough to invoke the Act and the Rules, and there is no strict
requirement to show that he/she needs maintenance (in order to obtain an eviction order);
In various judgments, it has been held that even daughters-in-law can be evicted under the provisions of
the 2007 Act.
Vijay Kumar, a healthy 65-year-old retired bank manager, is childless and widower. However, he has found
his son's love in his nephew, Rajesh, and he sponsored the education and upbringing of Rajesh. Off late,
Rajesh did well in his life and earned a lot of money and eventually brought a house of his own. After
retirement Vijay Kumar came to live with Rajesh in his home and everything got along well. However, one
year back, Rajesh got married, and his wife Sushmita started harassing Vijay Kumar. Sushmita wants to
evict Vijay Kumar from the house. Vijay Kumar is a legally awarded man, so he applied under the
provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to obtain the remedy.
Source :- [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from ,”Protecting the Elderly in India: Hits and
misses under the recent legislative and judicial framework” by Vipul Kumar & Shireen Moti at bar
and bench, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/protecting-the-elderly-in-india-hits- a nd-
misses-under-the-recent-legislative-and-judicial-framework]
If the owner of the house had been Vijay Kumar, in which Vijay Kumar, Rajesh and Sushmita have been
living, but Rajesh is not the legal heir of Vijay Kumar then which of the following option will be correct.
 
A. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict both Sushmita
and Rajesh under Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, being the
lawful owner of the house.
B. No, Vijay Kumar cannot evict them, under
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, because though he is the owner
of the house but they are not his legal heirs.
 
C. Yes because harassment of senior citizens has
been prohibited under the act.
D. No, Vijay Kumar cannot evict them because
Sushmita can use false case of dowry harassment
against him.
2. Which one of the following options will be true?
 A. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict Sushmita from
the house under the Maintenance and Welfare of
B. Vijay Kumar cannot evict Sushmita from the
house under the given act, as he is not the owner of
the house.
Page 4


w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
Mock Test Solutions in English
Questions
1. Directions: Study the following passage and answer the given questions.
Passage
The Government of India enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
in an attempt to further the constitutional mandate of securing the interests of elderly under Article 41 of
the Constitution of India. The protections accorded to the elderly under the 2007 Act are of particular
contemporary significance, especially when Delhi High Court has recently taken judicial notice of the fact
that domestic violence cases in India have seen a significant increase during the nationwide lockdown
imposed by the government.
In cases of disputes between the parents (or parents-in-law) and children, the elderly may be concerned
with peaceful enjoyment of their property or in other cases, demand a fair sum from their kin towards
maintenance for a decent lifestyle. Safeguards under the 2007 Act and judicial interpretations expanding
its scope are as under:
The 2007 Act enables any ‘Senior Citizen’ (defined as a citizen of India who has attained the age of sixty
years or above) or a ‘Parent’ to make an application for ‘maintenance’ (defined as including provisions for
food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment) before a ‘Maintenance Tribunal’.
Such an application can be preferred at the instance of:
(i) A (childless) Senior Citizen against any of his relatives (defined as any legal heir of the childless senior
citizen who is not a minor and would inherit his property after his death) or
(ii) A parent or grand-parent against one or more of his children not being a minor.
The 2007 Act therefore casts an obligation on persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives.
w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
In subsequent judicial decisions the scope of the legislation has even enlarged to even confer the rights of
eviction upon the elderly. In a judgement it was held that the mere fact that parents do not wish to have
their children staying with them is enough to invoke the Act and the Rules, and there is no strict
requirement to show that he/she needs maintenance (in order to obtain an eviction order);
In various judgments, it has been held that even daughters-in-law can be evicted under the provisions of
the 2007 Act.
Vijay Kumar, a healthy 65-year-old retired bank manager, is childless and widower. However, he has found
his son's love in his nephew, Rajesh, and he sponsored the education and upbringing of Rajesh. Off late,
Rajesh did well in his life and earned a lot of money and eventually brought a house of his own. After
retirement Vijay Kumar came to live with Rajesh in his home and everything got along well. However, one
year back, Rajesh got married, and his wife Sushmita started harassing Vijay Kumar. Sushmita wants to
evict Vijay Kumar from the house. Vijay Kumar is a legally awarded man, so he applied under the
provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to obtain the remedy.
Source :- [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from ,”Protecting the Elderly in India: Hits and
misses under the recent legislative and judicial framework” by Vipul Kumar & Shireen Moti at bar
and bench, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/protecting-the-elderly-in-india-hits- a nd-
misses-under-the-recent-legislative-and-judicial-framework]
If the owner of the house had been Vijay Kumar, in which Vijay Kumar, Rajesh and Sushmita have been
living, but Rajesh is not the legal heir of Vijay Kumar then which of the following option will be correct.
 
A. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict both Sushmita
and Rajesh under Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, being the
lawful owner of the house.
B. No, Vijay Kumar cannot evict them, under
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, because though he is the owner
of the house but they are not his legal heirs.
 
C. Yes because harassment of senior citizens has
been prohibited under the act.
D. No, Vijay Kumar cannot evict them because
Sushmita can use false case of dowry harassment
against him.
2. Which one of the following options will be true?
 A. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict Sushmita from
the house under the Maintenance and Welfare of
B. Vijay Kumar cannot evict Sushmita from the
house under the given act, as he is not the owner of
the house.
w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as he has
ample evidence of the harassment.
 
C. Vijay Kumar can evict Sushmita from the house
but not Rajesh, as Rajesh is the original owner of the
house.
D. Sushmita will in turn be able to evict Vijay Kumar
from the house as she is the wife of the owner of the
house.
3. Suppose Vijay Kumar is the owner of the house and Rajesh is his real son. All other things remaining the
same Vijay Kumar proves in the court under the given act, that Sushmita regularly harasses her. Also, he
admits that Rajesh never harassed her nor did he say any objectionable word to him ever. In such a
scenario which of the following option will be correct?
 A. Vijay Kumar will evict both Rajesh and Sushmita.
B. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict only Sushmita
and not the Rajesh as he himself had admitted in
front of court that Rajesh never harassed him.
 
C. Vijay Kumar cannot evict any of them as husband
and wife cannot be dealt with differently. They have
the legal right to stay together and get evicted
together only.
D. Vijay Kumar cannot file this case as women are
protected under domestic violence act.
4. Suppose, an octogenarian, Vishambhar, is living with his grandson in his house. The grandson Rahul who
is 21 years of age only and works in a multinational company and earns 80000 per month, but spends the
whole salary on his lavish personal expenses. Vishambhar , is in financial crunch and cannot even
arrange money for his medicines. Which of the following will be true in such a scenario?
 
A. Vishambhar can bring an order under the given
act, to stop Rahul from extravagant spending and
spend as per the directions of Vishambhar.
B. Vishambhar can approach the maintenance
tribunal and get an order for his maintenance
expenses.
 
C. Vishambar cannot find any remedy in this case as
the given act is only for parents and their children
and not the grandfathers and grandsons.
D. Rahul has full rights over his salary as it is his
hard-earned money and Vishambhar cannot claim
any share in it.
5. According to the passage, what is the sequence of evolution of the said act - The Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 from beginning to current scenario?
 
A. Court judgements > Constitution> Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007
B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 > court judgements> Constitution.
 C. Constitution> Court judgements> Maintenance D. Constitution > Maintenance and Welfare of
Page 5


w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
Mock Test Solutions in English
Questions
1. Directions: Study the following passage and answer the given questions.
Passage
The Government of India enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
in an attempt to further the constitutional mandate of securing the interests of elderly under Article 41 of
the Constitution of India. The protections accorded to the elderly under the 2007 Act are of particular
contemporary significance, especially when Delhi High Court has recently taken judicial notice of the fact
that domestic violence cases in India have seen a significant increase during the nationwide lockdown
imposed by the government.
In cases of disputes between the parents (or parents-in-law) and children, the elderly may be concerned
with peaceful enjoyment of their property or in other cases, demand a fair sum from their kin towards
maintenance for a decent lifestyle. Safeguards under the 2007 Act and judicial interpretations expanding
its scope are as under:
The 2007 Act enables any ‘Senior Citizen’ (defined as a citizen of India who has attained the age of sixty
years or above) or a ‘Parent’ to make an application for ‘maintenance’ (defined as including provisions for
food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment) before a ‘Maintenance Tribunal’.
Such an application can be preferred at the instance of:
(i) A (childless) Senior Citizen against any of his relatives (defined as any legal heir of the childless senior
citizen who is not a minor and would inherit his property after his death) or
(ii) A parent or grand-parent against one or more of his children not being a minor.
The 2007 Act therefore casts an obligation on persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives.
w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
In subsequent judicial decisions the scope of the legislation has even enlarged to even confer the rights of
eviction upon the elderly. In a judgement it was held that the mere fact that parents do not wish to have
their children staying with them is enough to invoke the Act and the Rules, and there is no strict
requirement to show that he/she needs maintenance (in order to obtain an eviction order);
In various judgments, it has been held that even daughters-in-law can be evicted under the provisions of
the 2007 Act.
Vijay Kumar, a healthy 65-year-old retired bank manager, is childless and widower. However, he has found
his son's love in his nephew, Rajesh, and he sponsored the education and upbringing of Rajesh. Off late,
Rajesh did well in his life and earned a lot of money and eventually brought a house of his own. After
retirement Vijay Kumar came to live with Rajesh in his home and everything got along well. However, one
year back, Rajesh got married, and his wife Sushmita started harassing Vijay Kumar. Sushmita wants to
evict Vijay Kumar from the house. Vijay Kumar is a legally awarded man, so he applied under the
provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to obtain the remedy.
Source :- [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from ,”Protecting the Elderly in India: Hits and
misses under the recent legislative and judicial framework” by Vipul Kumar & Shireen Moti at bar
and bench, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/protecting-the-elderly-in-india-hits- a nd-
misses-under-the-recent-legislative-and-judicial-framework]
If the owner of the house had been Vijay Kumar, in which Vijay Kumar, Rajesh and Sushmita have been
living, but Rajesh is not the legal heir of Vijay Kumar then which of the following option will be correct.
 
A. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict both Sushmita
and Rajesh under Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, being the
lawful owner of the house.
B. No, Vijay Kumar cannot evict them, under
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, because though he is the owner
of the house but they are not his legal heirs.
 
C. Yes because harassment of senior citizens has
been prohibited under the act.
D. No, Vijay Kumar cannot evict them because
Sushmita can use false case of dowry harassment
against him.
2. Which one of the following options will be true?
 A. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict Sushmita from
the house under the Maintenance and Welfare of
B. Vijay Kumar cannot evict Sushmita from the
house under the given act, as he is not the owner of
the house.
w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as he has
ample evidence of the harassment.
 
C. Vijay Kumar can evict Sushmita from the house
but not Rajesh, as Rajesh is the original owner of the
house.
D. Sushmita will in turn be able to evict Vijay Kumar
from the house as she is the wife of the owner of the
house.
3. Suppose Vijay Kumar is the owner of the house and Rajesh is his real son. All other things remaining the
same Vijay Kumar proves in the court under the given act, that Sushmita regularly harasses her. Also, he
admits that Rajesh never harassed her nor did he say any objectionable word to him ever. In such a
scenario which of the following option will be correct?
 A. Vijay Kumar will evict both Rajesh and Sushmita.
B. Vijay Kumar will be able to evict only Sushmita
and not the Rajesh as he himself had admitted in
front of court that Rajesh never harassed him.
 
C. Vijay Kumar cannot evict any of them as husband
and wife cannot be dealt with differently. They have
the legal right to stay together and get evicted
together only.
D. Vijay Kumar cannot file this case as women are
protected under domestic violence act.
4. Suppose, an octogenarian, Vishambhar, is living with his grandson in his house. The grandson Rahul who
is 21 years of age only and works in a multinational company and earns 80000 per month, but spends the
whole salary on his lavish personal expenses. Vishambhar , is in financial crunch and cannot even
arrange money for his medicines. Which of the following will be true in such a scenario?
 
A. Vishambhar can bring an order under the given
act, to stop Rahul from extravagant spending and
spend as per the directions of Vishambhar.
B. Vishambhar can approach the maintenance
tribunal and get an order for his maintenance
expenses.
 
C. Vishambar cannot find any remedy in this case as
the given act is only for parents and their children
and not the grandfathers and grandsons.
D. Rahul has full rights over his salary as it is his
hard-earned money and Vishambhar cannot claim
any share in it.
5. According to the passage, what is the sequence of evolution of the said act - The Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 from beginning to current scenario?
 
A. Court judgements > Constitution> Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007
B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 > court judgements> Constitution.
 C. Constitution> Court judgements> Maintenance D. Constitution > Maintenance and Welfare of
w w w . b y j u s e x a m p r e p . c o m
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 > Court
judgements.
6. Directions: Study the following passage and answer the given questions.
Passage
Healthcare institutions/hospitals often hold patient’s “hostage” long after they should be medically
discharged, using armed guards, locked doors and even chains to extract money for unpaid bills. Even
death does not guarantee release because even morgues hold dead bodies for unpaid hospital bills.
Most recently, a 60-year-old man was tied to a hospital bed in Shajapur City Hospital, Madhya Pradesh
after his family failed to pay the medical bill of Rs. 11, 200. Such instances happen more often than
reported. By illegally detaining the patient, the hospital is curtailing the personal liberty of the patient so
detained. Confining a person in a hospital without lawful justification will amount to wrongful confinement
as defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The hospitals have no right whatsoever to
illegally detain a person for non-payment of their dues.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees to the people the right to personal liberty and prohibits
any inhuman treatment. Also, several other provisions of the constitution, point towards the requirements
of dignified treatment of human beings.
Despite the rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, it is not uncommon for hospitals to detain a
person on account of unpaid bills or holding a dead body of a deceased. Such practice is not only illegal
but squarely inhuman and torturous for the person detained as well as for the relatives of such person.
Hospitals defend their use of force (e.g. keeping armed guards, locked doors) towards security reasons for
protecting the hospital property and employees from the aggressive behavior of the patients and their kin.
A balance needs to be achieved between patients who are unable to pay the bill or who have been
exorbitantly charged by the hospital, and the problem faced by the hospitals who receive threat from the
patients and even go to the extent of vandalizing the hospital and assaulting the doctors working therein.
Though hospitals have a right to recover the amount which is due and payable by the patient, they cannot
resort to detention of patients on that pretext. At the same time some type of mechanism has to be
evolved in order to recover the rightful dues of the hospital.