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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct 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. 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.a)High Court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Vikashb)High court will entertain the petition and rule in favour of Rajeshc)High Court will accept the petition but reject it later as there is no illegality of law.d)High Court will reject the petition as there is alternate remedy present.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.