- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Allahabad High Court
- /
- Allahabad High Court Annual Family...
Allahabad High Court Annual Family Law Digest 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
15 Jan 2024 9:13 AM GMT
LiveLaw brings to you Allahabad High Court Digest on Family law cases from the year 2023.'Muslim Women Act' 1986| Divorced Muslim Wife Entitled To Maintenance Beyond Iddat Period, Until She Re-Marries: Allahabad HC Case title - Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 787 of 2022] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5 The Allahabad High Court has observed that as...
LiveLaw brings to you Allahabad High Court Digest on Family law cases from the year 2023.
Case title - Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 787 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to receive maintenance from her former husband not just till the completion of the 'Iddat' period, but for the rest of her life until she remarries.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while setting aside an order of the family court wherein a divorced Muslim woman was found entitled to maintenance only for the period of iddat.
Case title - Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 811 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Family Court rejecting the application of one Bitola (revisionist/wife) seeking maintenance from her Husband on the ground that she is staying away from her husband without any sufficient reason.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed that the Family Court conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of CrPC and disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, who is unable to maintain herself.
Case title - Shakila Khatun vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3573 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even for the period after iddat and for her whole life unless she is disqualified for the reasons such as marriage with someone else.
While observing thus, the bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh set aside an order of the Family Court whereby the plea filed by one Shakila Khatun, a divorcee, under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed by holding that a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C
Case title - Saroj Kumari vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2211 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court observed that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 allowing for the grant of benefits to a woman would be applicable even after the birth of the child.
The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also opined that a woman can avail of maternity leave even after the birth of the child and such benefit can even be extended in a case of legal adoption of a child or less than three months.
Case title - Durvesh vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3215 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court recently called it a curse for a society that women are still subjected to occult (तांत्रिक) rituals to treat their infertility even before ascertaining that it might be a case of male infertility.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while denying bail to an accused who, along with his family members, has been accused of giving repeated burn injuries to her bhabhi (brother's wife) purportedly on the directions of an occultist so as to treat her infertility.
"The mindset of applicant and co-accused who still believe in occultism to be a cure of female infertility even before ascertaining that it might be a case of male infertility, is of persons living in stone age and not in 21st Century, where science as developed to such extent that even infertility (of male or of female) may be medically cured, therefore, there is absolutely no case of bail at this stage," the Court observed.
Case title - Ranjeeta @ Ravita vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1165 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 149
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has not completely blocked the discretionary power of the trial court in granting maintenance from the date of order in the case there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same.
For context, in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Court, in 2020, issued guidelines on payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters. In that case, it was held that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance.
Case title - Ravindra Pratap Yadav vs. Asha Devi And Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 405 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 160
The Allahabad High Court dissolved the marriage between a couple on the ground of cruelty by observing that not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse with his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse.
With this, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV allowed the appeal filed by the Husband challenging a family court's order dismissing his divorce petition under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
"Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage than that has ceased to in fact," the Court said as it quashed and set aside the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi.
Case title - Aarfa Bano Thru. Mohd. Hasim vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 148 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 182
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Muslim father-in-law has no locus to file a habeas corpus plea seeking the presence/custody of his daughter-in-law.
With this, the bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed disposed of a Habeas plea filed by one Mohd. Hasim seeking custody of his daughter-in-law alleging that she is in illegal custody of her parents since 2021 and that they are not allowing her to go to her matrimonial house.
Case title - Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22529 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC can sustain, after the rejection of the first application, if there are changes in the circumstances, entitling a person to be a claimant under the said provision.
Stressing that the liability to maintain under section 125 CrPC is a continuing one, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma was of the view that if the right to file an application for maintenance is foreclosed, it shall frustrate the very purpose of section 125 CrPC.
Case title - Kiran Rawat And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3310 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201
While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection against alleged harassment at the hands of the police, the Allahabad High Court observed that the views expressed by the Supreme Court pertaining to 'live-in' relationships "cannot be considered to promote such relationships"
Observing that traditionally, Law has been biased in favour of marriage, the Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also stressed upon the need to create awareness in young minds regarding the emotional and societal pressures and legal hassles which may be created by such relations.
Case title - Suneeta And Another vs. State Of U P And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 2723 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Observing that live-in relationships cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this Country¸ the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner, seeking police protection on the grounds that her husband is endangering their peaceful lives.
However, the bench of Justice Renu Agarwal further clarified that the Court is not against live-in relationships but against illegal relations.
“…this Court does not deem it proper to permit the parties to such illegality as tomorrow petitioners may convey that we have sanctified their illicit relations. Live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this Country. Directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relations.”
Case Title: Neelam Devi vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lko And Ors [Writ A No. 18566 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 219
The Allahabad High Court struck down the word 'unmarried' occurring before 'daughter' in the note appended to Regulation 104 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 which governs eligibility for compassionate appointment.
A bench comprising Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla observed that the State has recognised the right of daughters irrespective of their marital status while amending the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The same recognition should be granted to daughters under the 1975 Regulations.
Case title - Jai Govind @ Ramji Yadav vs. State Of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29409 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 227
The Allahabad High Court observed that the youth of the country are spoiling their lives due to the lure of free relationships with members of the opposite sex aping Western culture, however, they end up finding no "real soulmate".
"The youth in this country, under the influence of social media, movies, TV serials and the web series being shown are not able to decide about the correct course of their life and in search of their correct soulmates, they often land up in the company of the wrong person...The social media, movies etc., show that multiple affairs and infidelity to the spouse are normal and this inflames the imagination of impressionable minds and they start experimenting with the same, but they do (not) fit in the prevailing societal norm," observed Justice Siddharth.
Case title - Bharti And Another vs. State Of U P And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5589 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 228
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner while observing that since the lady has not divorced her husband, she and her live-in partner have no legal right to seek protection.
"...as the petitioner No.1 (lady) is not found to have obtained divorce from her husband i.e. respondent No.4, she still will be treated as legally weded wife of respondent No.4 and the petitioners have no legal right to seek protection on the facts of present case," the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.
Case Title: Garima Singh vs. Pratima Singh and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 233 [First Appeal No. 623/2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the right of the first wife to file an application under Section 11 (void marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaration of her husband's second marriage as void.
On the harmonious reading of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vinod Diwakar held:
“If the first wife is deprived of seeking a remedy under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it would defeat the very purpose and intent of the Act. The protection offered to legally wedded wives under sections 5, 11, and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act would become insignificant in such a scenario.”
Case Title - Saloni Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 238 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7996 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 238
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a 'child' (a person below the age of 18 years) cannot be in a live-in relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal.
The Court also said that there are several conditions for a live-in relation to be treated as a relation in nature of marriage and in any case, a person has to be major (above the age of 18 years) although he may not be of marriageable age (21 years).
Case Title: Krishna Kumar vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko And Ors. [ WRIT - C No. - 35884 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 275
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person cannot be evicted from the household merely at the instance of the senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
The bench comprising Justice Shree Prakash Singh held,
“A Tribunal, under Chapter-II of Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor from the property at the instance of senior citizens, though the Tribunal can direct the children and relatives to make available a residence to such senior citizens in pursuance of an application, filed under the abovesaid chapter. It further emerges that the District Magistrate as an appellate authority under the Act, 2007, can ensure that no one should make any hindrance to a senior citizen to enjoy the property as per his 'need' and the right to eviction is the last step, where such authority finds that the need of a senior citizen is not being fulfilled.”
Case Title: Prabhat Bhatnagar vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 279
The Allahabad High Court set aside the dismissal of a government employee for allegedly entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, finding merit in the petitioner's argument that the punishment was unjust since the alleged second marriage was not sufficiently proven.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra further held that even if the second marriage was subsisting, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service as Rule 29 of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules only provides for minor punishment in case of a second marriage of a government servant.
Case Title: Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema [FIRST APPEAL No. - 959 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296
The Allahabad High Court while adjudicating an appeal against interim maintenance awarded to the wife by the Family Court, has held that the minimum amount must be paid to the estranged wife from the date of the claim to preserve her life and liberty with dignity.
The Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV has upheld the interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- awarded to the wife and children by the Family Court while observing,
“Insofar as the award has been made from the date of the application, again, we find no good ground to interfere with the same. Minimum amounts are required to be provided from the date of the claim being made to ensure the life and liberty of the respondent/estranged wife involved in a matrimonial discord situation is preserved with minimal dignity,”
Case Title: Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 170 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297
The Allahabad High Court waived off the cooling-off for a married couple as they had mutually filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, after entering a Memorandum of Understanding amicably.
The court said the substantive right of the two parties that settle their conflict amicably must not be interfered with by citing procedure.
A bench comprising Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla observed,
“This Court may note that legitimacy or otherwise of an MOU arrived at between the parties out of their free will is not open to judicial scrutiny except on the ground of fraud. The very idea of settlement through mediation or amicable means runs and progresses through this realm of philosophy.”
Case title – Adnan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27288 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Granting bail to a man accused of raping his live-in partner, the Allahabad High Court observed that a systematic design is working to destroy the institution of marriage in India and that films and TV serials are contributing to the same.
Opining that the brutish concept of "changing partners in every season" cannot be considered to be a hallmark of a "stable and healthy" society, the Court stressed that the security and stability that the institution of marriage provides to an individual, cannot be expected from live-in-relationship.
Case Title: Sachin v. Sangeeta Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 960 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court has refused to order the DNA test of a child on the plea of a man seeking to prove adultery allegations he levelled against his wife by demonstrating that the child was not his legitimate son.
The child in question was born within 9 months of the man's marriage with his wife (respondent).
A bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV however observed that there were no pleadings to the effect that the parties had not known each or met each other before marriage. It held,
"Qua the allegation of adultery being levelled by the appellant, the burden to establish the same remains on the appellant. He cannot seek to lighten that burden by forcing the opposite party to lead evidence as may not only demolish the defence, if any of the opposite party but also be read as evidence that may prove the case of the appellants."
Case title - Santosh Kumar vs. Gayatri Devi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 338 [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 279 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 338
The Allahabad High Court observed that so long as a marriage survives, it remains the duty of the earning spouse to protect the life, liberty and dignity of the other.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed thus while hearing an appeal filed by one Santosh Kumar challenging an order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 providing for Rs. 7K per month as interim maintenance to his wife.
Case Title: Amit Jaiswal v. Dr. Pankhuri Agarwal @ Dr. Pankhuri Jaiswal [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1033 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 339
The Allahabad High Court has held that the family court ought not to reject an application filed for waving of the statutory six-month cooling off period in divorce proceedings under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a mechanical manner.
A bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal placed reliance on an earlier decision of the bench headed by Justice Singh in Vijay Agarwal v. Smt. Suchita Bansal, wherein the Court had held that the cooling off period under the provision is not mandatory. It is merely directory, and the discretion to waive the same rests with the Court.
Case Title : Abhishek Singh v. Shashi Singh @ Bindu Singh [First Appeal No. - 995 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 341
The Allahabad High Court has held that an amendment application may only be allowed if the party seeking amendment can show that there will be irreparable injury or justice will not be done in case the amendment sought is not allowed.
Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Family Court rejecting application seeking amendment in written statement on the ground that it was necessary amendment. It was argued that the appellant-husband had missed raising the objection in the written statement that the respondent-wife had set up a claim contrary to Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Priti Yadav @ Pinki v. Ashwani Gwal [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 294 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 343
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the order of the Family Court directing parties to mediation, instead of waiving the cooling off period after almost eight years of living separately. The Court held that with changing times, the Court should be mindful of the realities and depart from obsolete and conservative approach in matrimonial disputes.
The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,
“In the context of matrimonial disputes arising in present times, the courts are required to stay tuned to the realities of life and depart from obsolete and conservative approach to such litigation. While preservation of marriage survives as a desired goal and all the courts must first examine if a troubled marriage may be made to work for the good of the parties involved, at the same time it essentially being a matter of personal choice, upon fair consensus reached by the parties to dissolve their marriage, parties may not be obstructed only to seek technical compliance of procedural safeguards.”
Case title - Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23148 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Hindu marriage cannot be 'solemnised' unless the 'Saptapadi' ceremony (taking of seven steps by the the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire) and other rituals have been performed.
With this, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh allowed a petition filed by one Smriti Singh challenging the entire proceedings of a complaint filed against her by her husband under Sections 494 (Bigamy) and 109 (Punishment of abetment) IPC.
Case title - Chhavinath vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29678 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 398
Observing that our nation is the land of 'legendary' Shravan Kumar who sacrificed his life for aged blind parents, the Allahabad High Court recently said that the traditional norms and values of the Indian society emphasize the duty of taking care of elders.
Noting that children are expected to look after their elderly parents properly, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar also opined that this duty of the children is not only a value-based principle but a "bounden duty" as mandated by law.
Case title - Radhika And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15096 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 401
While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection from the police as they continue to be in a live-in relationship, the Allahabad High Court observed that such relationships are more about infatuation for the opposite sex without any sincerity and they often result into timepass.
Though accepting that the Supreme Court has, in several cases, validated the live-in relationship, the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi however added that in the span of two months and that too, at a tender age of 20-22 years, the Court cannot expect that the couple would be able to give serious thought over such type of temporary relationship.
Case title - Anchal Rajbhar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15799 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 403
While dismissing an FIR quashing plea filed by a live-in relationship couple, involving a minor boy and a major girl), the Allahabad High Court expressed 'surprise' that the minor boy, dependent upon his father, wants to be in a live-in relationship.
A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a girl (Anchal Rajbhar) and her minor live-in partner (Jaihind Rajbhar) seeking to quash an FIR lodged against the boy under Section 366 IPC.
Case Title:- Smt. Adity Rastogi v. Anubhav Verma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1145 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 412
The Allahabad High Court has held that though the term 'residing' appearing in Section 19 (Court to which petition shall be presented) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not defined under the Act, a casual visit to a place will not grant jurisdiction to the Court in that area to adjudicate upon divorce proceedings.
The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi while hearing an appeal of wife residing in Australia held,
“The term 'residing' though not defined under the Act, it clearly denotes more than a casual visit to a place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where a divorce proceeding may be instituted. Once it is admitted to the appellant that she is continuing to reside in Australia though under force of circumstance, it has to be maintained in law that she is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Moradabad.”
Case Title: Deepak vs. Smt. Reena [First Appeal Defective No. - 377 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 450
The Allahabad High Court has held that order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not appealable before the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
While referring to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“By using the words "Save as provided in sub-section (2)", the parliament has left no doubt to be entertained as to the supremacy of sub-section (2) of Section 19 with respect to right of appeal created under Section 19(1) of the Act. Section 19(2) of the Act clearly denies right of appeal against any order that may be passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. Undisputedly Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an integral part of Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.”
Case Title: Smt. Jyoti Verma vs. Prashant Kumar Verma 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 453 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1210 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court has held that even though opportunity of hearing before passing an order is non-negotiable, the same cannot be used to defeat the ends of justice. The Court held that if delay has been negligently or deliberately caused by one party, it cannot be allowed to take advantage of the delay.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held,
“Delay largely attributed to the conduct of a party, he may never be allowed to turn around and take advantage of the same even if the costs are offered to be paid. To accept the same, it would be to make mockery of justice dispensation.”
Case Title: Rohit Chaturvedi v. Smt Neha Chaturvedi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 295 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 456
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of illicit relationship of a spouse cannot be left to the imagination of the court. Such allegations must be clearly made.
While granting a decree of judicial separation under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court held,
“To infer existence of illicit relationship, it is not to be left to the imagination of the Court what the parties may have intended to say by way of fact allegation. The allegation of one party having illicit relationship with another must be clear.”
Case Title: Smt. Sonali Sharma v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dibyangjan Sashaktikaran Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 9110 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 486
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a piece of beneficial legislation which will override the provisions of the Financial Handbook on an institution. The Court further held that there is no bar on claiming second maternity benefits within two years from the first one.
Relying on the earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Anupam Yadav & Ors vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Anshu Rani vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Satakshi Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 410, Justice Manish Mathur observed that
“The aforesaid reasoning has also been indicated by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the other two judgments as well to the effect that the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 being a beneficial legislation would have overriding effect over the provisions of Financial Handbook. It was being specifically held that Second Maternity Leave within a period of two years from the grant of First Maternity Leave is admissible.”
Case Title: Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 497 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4878 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 497
The Allahabad High Court held that an order of interim maintenance during the pendency of application under Section 125 CrPC is not an interlocutory order and thus, can be challenged before the High Court in revision.
While enhancing the interim maintenance granted to revisionist-wife, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held
“The power to grant maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings flows from second proviso to section 125(1). The manner in which, the said power is to be exercised is ultimately to determine whether the order is interlocutory or not. As the order conclusive decides the grant of maintenance during the pendency of application based upon the material facts, it can certainly not be termed as an interlocutory order as it decides the rights of grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the application.”
Cause Of Action To Seek Divorce Arises Once Cruelty Is Found To Be Committed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Hemsingh @ Tinchu vs. Smt. Bhawna 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 507 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1360 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 507
The Allahabad High Court has held that Once cruelty is found committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise. The Court added that in cases of cruelty, the Court should look into other attending circumstances before passing an order to restore the marital relationship.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“Once cruelty is found committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise. How the parties may conduct themselves thereafter, may remain a relevant factor. Yet, no rule of law may arise as may dictate to the Court to pass an order to restore the matrimonial relationship between the parties, without looking into the other attending circumstances.”
