NOMINAL INDEX Doli vs. Shakuntla Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151 Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152 Ajay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 153 Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154 Anamika Tiwari And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB)...
NOMINAL INDEX
Doli vs. Shakuntla Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Ajay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Anamika Tiwari And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Mariya Zafar and another v. State of UP Thru. Pric. Sec. Home Lucknow and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Civil Court Bar Association And Another v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Binay Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 159
Humaira Riyaz vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Arvind Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 161
Chandra Choor Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp And Registration Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Tarik Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Murtaza Alias Phool Miya Alias Guddu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Ajay Verman vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Smt. Munni Devi v. Smt. Shashikala Pandey 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Fojiya and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 168
Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan (Minor) Thru. Father (Natural Guardian) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 169
Smt. Vandana Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 170
Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 171
Raj Kumar Verma and another vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Radhvendra Awasthi v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Abhishek Gond vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 174
Sahab Das Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner judicial Lucknow Division and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 175
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Doli vs. Shakuntla Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of a Hindu minor's interest in the undivided joint family property, no guardian can be appointed to manage such interests. It held that the same will be taken care by the adult member of the family, as per Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal held
“it is clear that in case a minor has an interest in joint family property, it is the adult member who is either male or female, would take care of the property and there is no need for appointment of any guardian.”
Case Title: Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
While holding that the mosque in question was illegally constructed on the Gram Sabah land which was recorded as 'Khalihan' in the revenue records, the Allahabad High Court removed penalty imposed under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the present mosque occupants as there was no material to link them to the construction of the mosque and did not have any title, right or interest in the property.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 153
The Allahabad High Court has held that for seeking compensation due to death COVID-19, it is necessary to produce the test reports which prove that the deceased had COVID-19 or a death certificate which records that the deceased died due to COVID-19 infection.
While rejecting a claim for compensation for death due to COVID-19 allegedly contracted while on election duty, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad held that for award of compensation, “A claimant must establish a case of covid infection qua the victim by placing test reports or must have a covid death certificate to rely upon.”
Case title - Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife continues even after his death, and the widow can claim maintenance from her father-in-law.
"It is well settled that a husband is obliged to maintain his wife. This position has emanated from situations, where the spouses have separated and the wife has sought for maintenance, either on the criminal side or under maintenance provisions in Hindu law. So much so, this obligation of the husband to maintain the wife attaches even after death of the husband in the law allowing the widow to claim maintenance from her father-in-law", a Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh observed.
Case title - Anamika Tiwari And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a woman is the absolute owner of her 'streedhan' property and a legally wedded wife can't face a criminal trial for alleged breach of trust under Section 406 IPC for allegedly taking it away.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that properties given to a woman before, at the time of, or after marriage constitute her 'streedhan' and do not become the joint property of the husband and wife.
Case Title: Mariya Zafar and another v. State of UP Thru. Pric. Sec. Home Lucknow and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
The Allahabad High Court summoned the income tax returns of a woman's husband for ascertaining his income.
In proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the wife-applicant had filed an application seeking production of the income tax returns of the husband as he had disputed being an architect and claimed to be a labour. The Trial Court rejected the application under Section 91 of CrPC for production of the returns on grounds that there was no need to summon such records.
Transfer Of Maintenance Proceedings From Family Court To Gram Nyayalaya Valid: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Civil Court Bar Association And Another v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to the Gram Nyayalayas under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.
Observing that the provisions, under which the order of the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to Gram Nyayalaya was passed, were not challenged, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“applying the settled principle that a later enactment prevails over an earlier enactment in case of inconsistency, the transfer of maintenance proceedings from the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to the Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 is held to be valid.”
Case Title: Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the accused is in judicial custody, he/she must be provided a legal counsel by the Trial Court for filing discharge application and if the accused refuses such counsel, then a hearing must be afforded on question of framing of issues with assistance of a legal counsel.
Referring to Sections 262 and 263 of BNSS, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held
“it becomes crystal clear that, on the one hand, the statute gives an opportunity to the accused to move an application for discharge within 60 days of supply of copies of documents and the court has also been prescribed a time limit of 60 days for framing of charge, which commences from the date of the first hearing on charge.”
Case title - Binay Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 159
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 159
The Allahabad High Court has observed that maintenance can't be granted, ignoring the professional competence and earning potential of the wife-claimant.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh thus reduced the monthly maintenance awarded to a wife under Section 125 CrPC, taking into account the wife's professional qualifications and past employment as a radiologist
The single judge modified a Family Court order, lowering the maintenance amount from Rs 18,000 to Rs 12,000 per month.
Case Title: Humaira Riyaz vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 160
The Allahabad High Court has observed that under Mohammedan Law, a divorce takes effect from the date a husband pronounces talaq and a subsequent court decree confirming it is merely declaratory in nature.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh clarified that such a court decree does not create a fresh divorce from the date of the judgment, but rather, it relates back to the original date of the talaq pronouncement.
"It is further settled that where a husband pronounces talaq and subsequently approaches the court seeking a decree regarding the same, the decree passed by the court is ordinarily declaratory in nature, which merely recognizes or confirms the status of divorce that had already taken place", the bench clarified.
Case title - Arvind Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 161
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 161
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an earning mother need not be formally impleaded as a party in a maintenance plea filed by a child against her/his father.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, however, directed that in such cases, the trial court must consider the financial capacity of both earning parents while determining the final maintenance amount based on the principle of shared parental responsibility.
Case Title: Chandra Choor Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp And Registration Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court has recently, read down Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 to include legal heirs of the beneficiary for raising claims for medical compensation in case the beneficiary is incapacitated from submitting the same.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“…applying the principles of 'reading down' we hold that the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011 should be read down so as to include the submission of a claim even by the legal heirs of the beneficiary where the beneficiary dies or is incapacitated from submitting the reimbursement claim himself and there is no other surviving beneficiary.”
Case title - Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 163
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a party challenging an ex-parte interim order passed in maintenance proceedings cannot argue on merits and that the scope of challenge is strictly confined to demonstrating the absence of service or a sufficient cause for non-appearance.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad passed the order while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by the husband.
Case title - Tarik Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 164
In a significant development in the case of a Muslim man who was earlier granted 24/7 security after allegedly being stopped from offering Namaz inside his private house, the Allahabad High Court on March 25 asked him not to hold large gatherings.
The Court has also asked the State authorities to take action if public peace and tranquillity are threatened due to such large gatherings. The HC also DISCHARGED the contempt notice issued to the Bareilly District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police.
Case title - Murtaza Alias Phool Miya Alias Guddu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 165
The Allahabad High Court observed that if a husband breaches the terms of a mediation settlement, the wife is not required to file a fresh maintenance plea as she can pursue earlier initiated proceedings.
The High Court stressed that the right to maintenance is not a one-time bounty but an ambulatory, recurring entitlement which crystallises afresh upon each breach of obligation.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh was essentially hearing a criminal revision plea filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay an amount of Rs 9K as maintenance to his wife.
Case title - Ajay Verman vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 166
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's familial obligations towards his parents and siblings do not absolve him of his primary responsibility to maintain his legally wedded wife.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar stated thus while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a railway employee who had challenged the order of enhancement of maintenance awarded to his wife and minor son.
Case Title: Smt. Munni Devi v. Smt. Shashikala Pandey 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 167
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which bars amendment in a suit after commencement of trial, is not strictly applicable to amendment of grounds in revision or appellate proceedings.
Order VI Rule 17 provides for amendment to pleadings. The proviso to Rule 17 provides that no amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court concludes that such grounds could not have been raised even with due diligence before commencement of trial.
Case title - Fojiya and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 168
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 168
The Allahabad High Court, acting on its own motion, has ordered the Inspector General of Police of the Meerut Zone to investigate a honey-trap and blackmail racket operating in the area.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that the presence of such a gang, which allegedly blackmails innocent people by utilizing women to spring a honey-trap, discloses a "pernicious state of affairs in society".
Case Title: Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan (Minor) Thru. Father (Natural Guardian) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 169
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 169
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no need for Juvenile Justice Board to direct an ossification test for determination of age where the documents provided prove the accused to be minor at the time of the incident.
Perusing Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Justice Manish Kumar held,
“it is evident that even if any of the document is taken into consideration, the only fact that comes out is that the applicant was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the Juvenile Justice Board to direct an ossification test for determination of age.”
Case Title: Smt.Vandana Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 170
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has held that locus of the complainant is irrelevant for the purpose of proceedings under Section 7-A of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958 when prima facie it is visible that the permission for development under the Act was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
Section 7-A of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958 provides for cancellation of permission for development has been obtained by fraud by prescribed authority after recording reasons in writing. Section 10 provides for demolition of any construction erected in contravention to and without permission as provided under Section 6 of the Act.
Counsel Sends Illness Slip But Appears Elsewhere: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹20,000 Costs
Case Title: Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 171
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Allahabad High Court has recently, imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on a lawyer appearing for anticipatory bail application, for attempting to deceive the Court by sending an illness slip while appearing in another case before another Court on the same day.
Noting that the counsel had appeared on another case on the same day while sending an illness slip in the present case and also not apprising the Court of the fact that the applicant had already obtained interim protection from arrest in another case, Dr. Justice Gautam Chowdhary observed,
Case Title: Raj Kumar Verma and another vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 172
The Allahabad High Court has held that deficiency under the Indian Stamp Act,1899 can be recovered from legal representatives of the deceased only to the extent of their inheritance.
Section 181 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for recovery proceedings against the legal representatives in cases of arrears of land revenue. It provides that recovery proceedings may continue against the legal representative (except arrest and detention) and recoveries shall be made only to the extent of the property inherited by the legal representatives from the deceased.
Case Title: Radhvendra Awasthi v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 173
The Allahabad High Court observed that cancelling a petrol pump dealership solely on the basis of a typographical error in the location is unfair and without any basis in law.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Indrajeet Shukla noted this is especially true when the dealer has already spent a huge sum of money acting on the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by the authority.
Case title - Abhishek Gond vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 174
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court observed that a party wishing to challenge an ex parte maintenance order passed under Section 144 BNSS/Section 125 CrPC can't directly file a criminal revision plea in the High Court.
A bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay clarified that an aggrieved party must first approach the Family Court or Judicial Magistrate under Section 145 (2) BNSS/Section 126(2) CrPC to seek the recall of such an ex parte order.
Case Title: Sahab Das Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner judicial Lucknow Division and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that if the condition under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are satisfied, then the labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, will be considered the Bhumidhar of the land and such bhumidhari cannot be subjected to revision by any authority.