Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 2 To February 8, 2026

NOMINAL INDEX Mohammad Shahzad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50 Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51 Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52 Gaurav Goswami vs. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.) and 12 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53 Moti Lal Yadav vs. Chief Election Commissioner Election Commisn.of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54 Avneesh Gupta (Minor) vs. Consortium of National Law Universities 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55 Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56 Satti Din and another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 57 Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 58 Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj And Another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 59 Vijendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60 Abhay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 61 XXX v. Chairman U.G.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 62 Priyank Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 63 Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 65 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Simultaneous Issuance Of Recovery & Arrest Warrants For Maintenance Arrears Is Illegal: Allahabad High Court, Says Practice Must Stop Case title - Mohammad Shahzad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50 Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50 The Allahabad High Court has held that the routine practice prevalent in the Family Courts of issuing warrants for recovery and arrest simultaneously is illegal and inhumane and the same must stop. A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed that a person liable to pay maintenance is not to be treated as a person who has committed a crime and the dignity and liberty of such an individual cannot be trampled upon by the Courts to enforce a maintenance order No Bar To Consensual Transfer Of Matrimonial Cases U/S 24 CPC; Convenience Test Stands 'Considerably Diluted': Allahabad High Court Case title - Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51 Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51 The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no legal impediment to order a transfer of a case by invoking powers under Section 24 Civil Procedure Code when the contesting parties are ad idem (in agreement). The Court added that in cases of consensual transfers, the requirement for a detailed comparative examination of the balance of convenience stands considerably diluted. The observation was made by a bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava while allowing a transfer application in a divorce suit. The Court said that while the plaintiff is ordinarily the dominus litis (master of the suit), this right is deemed waived when the transfer is not opposed. Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Gangsters Act Proceedings Against Disqualified SP MLA Irfan Solanki Case title - Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52 Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52 The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed by former Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. A bench of Justice Samit Gopal rejected his plea under Section 528 BNSS as it took into account the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage and that prima facie material is available against him. 'To Ease Pilgrim Pressure': High Court Upholds Extended 'Banke Bihari' Darshan Timings, Rejects Contempt Plea Against SC-Appointed Panel Case title - Gaurav Goswami vs. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.) and 12 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53 Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53 The Allahabad High Court has rejected a contempt application filed against the Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Temple Management Committee, led by Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.), for increasing the darshan timings at the Thakur Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple (in Vrindavan-Mathura), allegedly in violation of HC's Novemebr 2022 order. A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal noted that the Committee, empowered by the Top Court to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the temple, had decided to increase the darshan time, in light of the huge influx of pilgrims at the Temple who are facing great hardship. UP Govt's Ban On Political Caste Rallies Must Be Effective; Right Values In Children Is Permanent Solution: Allahabad High Court Case title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. Chief Election Commissioner Election Commisn.of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54 Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54 The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in 2013 seeking a ban on all caste-based political rallies and a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI)...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 2 To February 8, 2026

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags