High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 18 – Jan 24]

Allahabad High Court 1. "Parties Wish To Bury Differences, Talaq Acceptable To Both": Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Husband [Mohammmad Gufran v. State Of UP & Ors.] Noting the fact that a Muslim couple had accepted their talaq, a Bench of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary the observed that now the talaq would be termed to be a khula talaq, and accordingly it quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband under the relevant provisions of IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The petitioner, Mohd. Gufran along with Huma (wife of Gufran) stated before the Court that they want to bury their differences and that they have accepted the talaq. To this, the Court said, "As the parties belong to Muslim religion and as now, they have accepted the talaq which would now be turned and termed to be a khula talaq as per the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and as per the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986." 2. Allahabad High Court Seeks Response Of GST Authority On Software Glitches Causing Harassment Of Poor Assessees [M/S Ansari Construction v. Additional Commissioner, CGST(Appeals) & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia sought the response of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Authority in a case relating to technical glitches in its software for issuing online show cause notices to alleged defaulters. It noted that due to the said glitch, a concerned assessee was merely served the show cause notice via e-post, without the reasons for issuance of such notice, thereby rendering him incapable of effectively defending/ presenting his case before the authority. "It appears that the system and the operators are solely responsible for the harassment being meted out to the poor assesses…this Court is unable to decipher whether, the harassment to the taxpayer is a personal one or the system/service provider is to be blamed," the Court said wile issuing notice to the Revenue Secretary (Tax). 3. "Religious Rights Of Muslim Community Infringed":Allahabad High Court Orders To Stop Encroachments On Kabaristan By Ant-social Elements [Mohammad Shahid & Ors. v. State Of UP & Ors.] "Every citizen has an equal and inalienable right as any other citizen for living peacefully, without fear of antisocial elements and for enjoying religious freedom", observed a Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Sanjay Yadav while issuing some directions in a plea seeking necessary action against illegal encroachment/ damage made to a Kabristan (Muslim graveyard) situated in District Kaushambi of Uttar Pradesh. "This Court is of the opinion that the customary and religious rights of the Muslim community of village Boonda are being threatened and infringed by the acts of certain persons encroaching on the aforesaid kabristan," the Bench added. Access full report for directions 4. 'Judge Acts Like God, He Should Not Make Mistakes': Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Magistrate For Issuing Summoning Order In Pre-Printed Format [Sanjay & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr.] "A Judge acts like a God, he/she should not make mistakes due to haste or excess of work. How will a normal man get justice when a judge makes a mistake because of the excess of his/ her work?," observed Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while hearing an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of a summoning order mechanically passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, on a printed-proforma. The bench reminded the CJM that Cognizance/ summoning orders passed on printed proforma were set aside in Vishnu Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr. Various Benches of the High Court have also passed orders directing the subordinate courts to pass cognizance/ summoning orders with application of mind, giving satisfactory reasons. Even on the administrative side, the High Court has issued circulars to the subordinate courts from time to time, restraining them from passing cognizance/ summoning orders on a printed proforma without application of mind. 5. Strict Proof Of Performance Of Essential Marriage Rites Not Required In Plea For Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court [Irshad Ali v. State of UP & Anr.] A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh held that while claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, a party need not furnish strict proof of performance of essential rites of marriage. It held that if from the evidence which is led, the Magistrate/ court is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required. Reference was made to a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in 1999 in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr.,...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 18 – Jan 24]

Akshita Saxena

Summation of important High Court orders this week

Tags