CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Directions: Read the following passage and ... Start Learning for Free
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).
Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.
In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.
Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?
  • a)
    Mandamus
  • b)
    Certiorari
  • c)
    Prohibition
  • d)
    Quo warranto
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The M...
Explanation:

Certiorari Writ:
- The High Court can call records from the lower courts for review under the writ of certiorari.
- Certiorari is a Latin term that means "to be certified" or "to be informed."
- This writ is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to transfer a case to the higher court for review.
- The purpose of certiorari is to ensure that the lower court or tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction or has not committed an error of law.
- It is used to correct errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the face of the record.

Importance of Certiorari Writ:
- Certiorari is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and ensuring that lower courts act within their authority.
- It helps in upholding the rule of law and protects the rights of individuals against arbitrary decisions or actions by lower courts.

Application in the Given Case:
- In the passage, the petitioner tried to challenge the orders of the lower courts through a revision petition and later under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- However, the High Court dismissed the case as there was no manifest illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts.
- If the petitioner had sought a review of the lower courts' orders, the High Court could have called for the records using the writ of certiorari to examine the legality and correctness of the decisions.

Conclusion:
- The writ of certiorari plays a crucial role in the judicial system by allowing higher courts to review and correct errors made by lower courts.
- It ensures that justice is served and that decisions are made in accordance with the law.
Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The M...
According to question,
Under Section 397397of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a Sessions court.
Hence, the correct answer is Certiorari.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justic e). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. As per section 482482 CrPC the decision given by High court is

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justic e). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Sumanta is married to Sunita and has 3 children- Rajdeep,Rajrupa and Rajendrani. Also Gitarani, mother of Sumanta, is also alive with no means to sustain herself. In the year 2019 Sumanta left his wife Sunita who is dependent on him. Now to whom does Sumanta have to pay maintenance ?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justic e). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. "Revisional powers belong to supervisory jurisdiction of a superior court." What can a High Court do in case of revision ?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justic e). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Vikash instituted a criminal proceeding which manifests his malafide motive with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on Rajesh, the accused and with a view to spite him due to personal grudge. The trial court passed an order in favour of Vikash and awarded Rajesh a penalty of 22 years of jail term. Rajesh filed a petition in High Court under section 482482 CrPC. What will happen now.

Both Houses of Parliament have passed a Bill making instant triple talaq a criminal offence, amidst persistent doubts whether it ought to be treated as a crime or just a civil case. It is true that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriag e) Bill, 2019, is a diluted version of the Bill as it was originally conceived. Earlier, it did not specify who could set the law in motion. Now the offence is cognisable only if the affected wife, or one related to her by blood or marriage, files a police complaint. Thirdly, the offence is compoundable, that is, the parties may arrive at a compromise.The government says its main objective is to give effect to the Supreme Court's 2017 verdict declaring instant triple talaq illegal. It claims that despite the court ruling, several instances have been reported. Making it an offence, the government says, will deter further resort to triple talaq, and provide redress for women in the form of a subsistence allowance and custody of children, besides getting the erring husband arrested.In the light of the Supreme Court ruling on its validity, there is really no need to declare instant triple talaq a criminal offence. The practice has no approval in Islamic tenets, and is indeed considered abhorrent. Secondly, once it has been declared illegal, pronouncing talaq obviously does not have the effect of "instantaneous and irrevocable divorce" as this Bill claims in its definition of 'talaq'. The provisions that allow a woman to claim a subsistence allowance from the man and seek custody of her children can be implemented in the event of the husband abandoning her, even without the man's arrest.If triple talaq, in any form, is void, how the questions of children's custody and subsistence allowance arise while the marriage subsists, is not clear. And then, there is the practical question of how a man can provide a subsistence allowance while he is imprisoned. It has been argued by the Bill's proponents that dowry harassment and cruelty towards wives are treated as criminal offences even while the marriage subsists. It is a patently wrong comparison, as those acts involve violence and cruelty and are rightly treated as criminal offences. The same cannot be said of a man invoking a prohibited form of divorce.Q. Fiza married Abdul. Abdul wanted to marry Soha who placed a condition that Abdul should first divorce Fiza.Abdul gave instant triple talaq to Fiza. Fiza's brother, Shoaib, files a criminal case against Abdul. Choose the correct option.

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Madras High Court has dismissed a case filed by a person challenging two consecutive orders passed by courts directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 a month to his aged mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents).Justice PN. Prakash said he did not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by a judicial magistrate court in Salem in 2012 and confirmed by a sessions court in 2014 while dismissing a revision petition preferred by the man under Section 397 of the CrPC (calling for records to exercise powers of revision). The judge pointed out that an order by a judicial or metropolitan magistrate for payment of monthly maintenance to parents, wife or children could be challenged by way of a criminal revision petition either before a High Court or a sessions court. After the petitioner moves a revision application before the High Court or the sessions court, no further application by the same person could be entertained by either of the courts.There was a specific bar on it under Section 397(3) of CrPC.In an attempt to overcome such a bar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice). Holding the course adopted by the petitioner as not maintainable, Justice Prakash said petitions under Section 482 could be entertained by the High Court only if there was a manifest illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. "In the present case, this court does not find any such illegality.The mother-son relationship is not disputed.Only the quantum of maintenance is challenged. This is a question of fact, which has been gone into by the two courts below," the judge said, and dismissed the case.Q. Under which writ can the High Court call records from the lower courts for review ?a)Mandamusb)Certioraric)Prohibitiond)Quo warrantoCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev