LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: July 20 To July 26, 2026
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
26 July 2026 8:56 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Umesh Vidyarthi Versus Madhubala And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Pardeshi v. D.D.C and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Bashiran and another v. Smt. Harpal Kaur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Dinesh Chandra Shukla and 3 others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Jai Shakti Realcon v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
Rahul Kumar Saroj Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Gyanmati @ Sangathiya Versus State of U.P. (along with connected appeal) 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
Amit Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Faimuddeen and 2 others v State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. Shri Chitrakoot Ramlila Samiti And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Roshanlal and others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
VSC vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Shri Ram Prakash and 3 others v. Smt. Asha Johri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
State of U.P. and others v. Ranveer Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Babu and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
M/S Calcutta Springs Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Nirmal Kumar Gope vs. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Railways New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Prema Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Faishal Beg vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Sanjay Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Chandra Prakash Singh Alias Goli Thakur v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Chhotka vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Lokendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Rohit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title - Umesh Vidyarthi Versus Madhubala And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the Trial Courts are not obligated to defer pronouncement of judgment on a maintenance application filed under Section 125 CrPC merely because an application under Section 340 CrPC is filed after the judgment was reserved.
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that proceedings contemplated under Section 340 CrPC are independent in nature and are not connected with the adjudication of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of deemed extension of a mining lease under Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015 is available to a lessee only where the application for renewal was a valid application and all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with.
It held that a lessee who continued mining after the expiry of the lease without a valid mining plan and environment clearance had not complied with the conditions of the lease and could not claim the benefit of deemed extension.
Case Title: Pardeshi v. D.D.C and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere existence of a joint Hindu family does not raise presumption that a particular holding is a joint family property.
It held that a member of a joint Hindu family can acquire and hold property exclusively in his own name. It held that other members cannot be granted co-tenancy rights over such a holding unless they prove that it was acquired from a joint family nucleus.
Case Title: Smt. Bashiran and another v. Smt. Harpal Kaur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 22 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings [Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction] Act, 1972 is not maintainable against an order rejecting an application for recall of an ex-parte release (eviction) order passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
It held that such an order is referable to the procedural powers exercisable under Section 34 read with the Rules framed thereunder, and is not an order under Section 21 or Section 24, against which the Act provides a right of appeal.
Case Title - Dinesh Chandra Shukla and 3 others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the omission of Section 34 IPC in the operative portion of a judgment is not fatal to a case if the prosecution has successfully established the common intention.
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar-II clarified that Section 34 IPC is not a substantive offence and does not create an offence by itself; instead, it is merely a rule of evidence that recognizes principle of constructive liability.
Case Title: Jai Shakti Realcon v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a mining lessee defaults in paying royalty and thereby gives the State ground to terminate the lease, the State's unexplained delay in exercising its power to determine the lease under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 amounts to arbitrary action.
It held that the lessee cannot be forced to pay the installments that fell due only because of delay on part of the State.
Case Title - Rahul Kumar Saroj Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
The Allahabad High Court directed the medical examination of a man who has been accused of extracting a victim's obscene photographs and continuously blackmailing her, noting that he doesn't appear to be a person of sound mind.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order after reviewing the nature of the filthy messages and social media posts made by the applicant.
Case Title - Gyanmati @ Sangathiya Versus State of U.P. (along with connected appeal) 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
The Allahabad High Court has held that Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports must disclose specific reasons and scientific data. It added that a report merely recording a conclusion without detailing the tests conducted or the criteria used is inadmissible in evidence.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made these significant observations while recommending a slew of forensic reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system.
Case Title - Amit Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the Uttar Pradesh government for negligence on the part of certain police officials, which delayed the disposal of a bail application and left a man in jail for an extra 15 days.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed that the amount so imposed be paid to the bail applicant. However, the State Government has been given the liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry.
Case title - Faimuddeen and 2 others v State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
In a significant development concerning the demolition action across the state, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on whether the State can be barred from taking any action to demolish the house of an accused for a period of two years from the date of registration of an FIR.
While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that a 2-year hiatus must be put in place so that the State's urge to "satiate the presumable public anger" immediately following the offence would 'dissipate', Justice Siddharth Nandan strongly dissented from placing a blanket embargo on statutory actions for 2 years.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. Shri Chitrakoot Ramlila Samiti And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
The Allahabad High Court has held that impleadment of every legal heir of a deceased tenant is not mandatory in eviction proceedings. It held that the tenancy of a deceased tenant devolves upon the heirs as a joint and indivisible unit, and effective representation of the tenancy by one co-tenant in possession suffices. It held that non-joinder of the remaining heirs not being fatal to the proceedings.
Case title - Roshanlal and others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of a 92-year-old man in connection with a 1982 assault case; however, it modified his sentence to the period already undergone in jail, considering that no useful purpose would be served by sending him to prison now.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Chhotey Lal) in 1984 challenging his conviction by a Sessions Court in Pilibhit for an assault that took place in October 1982.
Case title - VSC vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
The Allahabad High Court cancelled the interim bail of an advocate accused of harassing and stalking a lady colleague while observing that his acts of writing directly to the judge's chamber and showing up in open court in violation of his explicit undertaking were "contemptuous and wholly unprofessional".
Cancelling his bail and ordering that he be taken into immediate custody, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into his conduct to determine whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession.
Case title - Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition filed by a mother seeking the production of her 35-year-old son after noting that the man is instead absconding to evade arrest in a dowry and harassment case.
“The investigation against accused persons have been concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Omwati and corpus Manish, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, as such, no ground is made out for entertaining this habeas corpus writ petition,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed in its July 21 order.
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person appointed on compassionate grounds following his mother's death cannot be removed from service on allegations that he concealed his father's government employment, when the authorities were aware of that fact at the time of appointment and had granted him the job after verifying his documents.
The Court held that petitioner's termination in this case, ordered nearly twelve years after the appointment, without any inquiry or charge-sheet or any witness being examined, was illegal.
Case Title: Shri Ram Prakash and 3 others v. Smt. Asha Johri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for a suit to redeem usufructuary mortgage or recover possession begins to run only when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money and not from the date on which the mortgage deed is executed.
A usufructuary mortgage is one where the mortgagor hands over possession to the mortgagee, who keeps the rents and profits in lieu of interest or towards the principal, until the debt is repaid.
Case Title: State of U.P. and others v. Ranveer Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment to a reserved category post is obtained by producing a forged and fabricated caste certificate, the appointment is void ab initio and the employer need not conduct a full departmental disciplinary enquiry before terminating it.
It held that since the appointment was itself an illegal order, issuing a show-cause notice before dismissal was sufficient, and no chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings were required.
Case title - Babu and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Observing that when it is not clear from evidence which party was the aggressor in a clash, then it would be deemed that it was a “free fight”, where each person is responsible for their own act, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted 4 women and upheld the conviction of 2 men in a 1984 land dispute case.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar passed the judgment while dealing with an appeal filed against the June 1988 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lalitpur.
Case Title: Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the word 'husband' under Section 80 (Dowry Death) and 85 (Cruelty) BNS will ordinarily include only a person who is legally married to the woman, and not a person whose marriage with the woman is itself void.
In other words, the High Court clarified that a man whose second marriage is void owing to the subsistence of his first marriage cannot ordinarily be treated as a "husband' for the purposes of the above-mentioned provisions.
Case title - M/S Calcutta Springs Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Nirmal Kumar Gope vs. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Railways New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Calcutta Springs Limited seeking approval for its proposed Railway Concrete Sleeper Plant (CSP), holding that the Court cannot direct the grant of approval where the statutory process requires technical evaluation by the competent authority.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that the approval mechanism envisaged by the Railways involves technical scrutiny at several stages and that the Court lacks the expertise to substitute its assessment for that of the approving authority.
Case Title: M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court has held that a contract does not become a “statutory contract” merely because one of the contracting parties is an instrumentality of the State falling within Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
It held that where a party's rights arise only from a purely commercial contract, that does not bar the State entity from floating a tender for competition venture, and the party has no legal right to challenge such tender.
Case Title: Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a sale deed registered under the Registration Act, 1908 cannot be set aside by the registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, even where the registration is questioned on the ground of impersonation or fraud.
Relying on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P.., the bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Saran held,
“There is no dispute about the settled legal position with respect to the judgment rendered inRe: Smt. Kusum Lata (supra) that a duly registered sale deed under the Act cannot be set aside by registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned even on the count of impersonation/fraud.”
Case Title: Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
The Allahabad High Court has held that Clause 10 of the Circular dated 03.05.1982 issued by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., being only an executive instruction, cannot cut down the right to salary conferred by Section 10 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 on teachers of the primary section of an institution running Classes I to VIII.
Case Title: Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in favour of a petitioner who is unable to show a legal right in himself and a corresponding public duty cast by law upon the authority.
It held that where the grievance is in substance one of non-registration of a criminal case, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and must be relegated to it.
Case title - Faishal Beg vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has clarified that proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 can validly be initiated on the basis of a Station House Officer's (SHO) report, provided it is forwarded through the Superintendent of Police (SP) to the District Magistrate in accordance with Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Rules, 1970.
Case Title: Sanjay Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
The Allahabad High Court has held that a special appeal is maintainable against a non-speaking order passed by a Single Judge, notwithstanding the bar contained in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. It held that the requirement to record reasons is a facet of natural justice, and that the bar created by Rule 5 must yield to it.
Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules, 1952 bars a special appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge passed in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of an order of the Government or any officer or authority made in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under a State or Central Act.
Case title - Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because judicial remand was earlier declined would not by itself preclude the Investigating Officer from conducting further investigation or prevent the court from independently considering the police report at the stage of taking cognizance.
A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging an order of the Special Judge, SCST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, taking cognizance and summoning the appellant in a case registered under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SCST Act.
Case title - Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no legal bar to summoning material witnesses under Section 311 CrPC merely because their examination-in-chief has not yet been conducted.
The bench observed that if the trial court reaches the conclusion that the examination of a witness is necessary, such a witness can be summoned at any stage, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case title - Chandra Prakash Singh Alias Goli Thakur v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Allahabad High Court refused to discharge a man accused of posting casteist remarks against Member of Parliament (Nagina Lok Sabha Constituency) Chandrashekhar Azad on Facebook.
The bench observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists and not to conduct a “mini-trial”.
Case title - Chhotka vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
The Allahabad High Court deprecated the practice of advocates seeking adjournments on the ground that they are engaged before the district courts.
The Court said that such conduct "shows lack of respect towards their professional duties as also towards the High Court" and causes "artificial and unwarranted increase in pendency of matters before the High Court".
Case title - Lokendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal case alleging rape arising out of a failed consensual relationship after it found that the FIR was lodged to take 'revenge' after the accused decided to withdraw from the relationship and marry another woman.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh noted that the material on record reflected that both parties were in a consensual relationship for a considerable period of time and the conduct of the prosecutrix did not support the allegations that the physical relationship was established against her will or without her consent.
Case Title: Smt. Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke Section 159, which allows proceedings against a deceased assessee's legal representative, to continue reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of a dead person.
It held that where the notice is issued after the assessee's death, the department must issue a fresh notice to the legal representatives within the limitation period.
Also read : Income Tax Act | Notice To Deceased Assessee Under S.148 Void, Not Curable: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rohit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
The Allahabad High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to conduct an enquiry against an Investigating Officer (IO) who failed to seize the mobile phones of the accused in a POCSO case despite allegations that obscene videos and photographs of the victim had been prepared using those devices.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while granting bail to the applicant-accused facing a criminal case registered under Sections 137(2), 70, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act.
Case title - Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Clarifying that a wife cannot be compelled to file successive execution applications to recover monthly maintenance, the Allahabad High Court has directed all the Family Court Judges in UP to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court judgments on enforcement of maintenance orders, as failure to do so may invite disciplinary as well as contempt proceedings.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed thus while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman challenging orders of a Family Court in Jaunpur which had rejected her execution application seeking enforcement of a maintenance order passed in her favour under Section 125 CrPC.
Case title - X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the HC can invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) suo motu to quash criminal proceedings even while dealing with an appeal filed by the complainant where it finds that continuation of the proceedings would defeat the "ends of justice" or amount to an "abuse of the process of any Court".
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by a complainant challenging an order of the Special Judge whereby her application under Section 173 (4) BNSS was treated as a complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR on the application.
Case title - Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
The Allahabad High Court held that a woman who is induced into marriage by concealment of the husband's existing marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though the marriage between the parties is void.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad noted that a husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and deny maintenance to the woman who had entered into the marriage without knowledge of the subsisting earlier marriage.
OTHER UPDATES OF THE WEEK
A sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court has challenged denial of tax exemption on statutory allowances as prescribed under Section 22D of the High Court Judges (Salaries & Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, under the new income tax regime.
Section 22D of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, the sumptuary allowance (Section 22C) and the house rent allowance (22A) granted to a High Court Judge is fully exempted from the purview of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not liable to be included in the computation of his income chargeable under the head “Salaries” within Section 15 of the Act of 1961.
The Allahabad High Court directed a newly constituted 13-member High Powered Committee to act with urgency in addressing the severe monkey menace across Uttar Pradesh and take appropriate decisions
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra specifically asked the Committee to hold meetings at a regular interval and “not remain on paper only”.
Taking serious note of allegations that 3 Delhi-based advocates, including 2 women lawyers, were assaulted and prevented from appearing before a court at the Lucknow District Court, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday convened a special Bench at 7 PM.
The development came just hours after a practising Supreme Court advocate alleged before the Chief Justice of India's Court that she and her client were beaten up by a Bar Association office bearer in connection with a land grabbing case at the Lucknow District Court.
The Allahabad High Court observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not helpless and may proceed strictly in accordance with the law if its probe into a complaint alleging 'disproportionate assets' against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi reveals any "misdeed or illegal act".
Simultaneously, observing that the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lacked clarity, the Court directed the agency to file a fresh affidavit in the matter.
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday converted into a separate suo motu Public Interest Litigation PIL the matter concerning the alleged assault on three Delhi-based advocates, including two women lawyers, and their client inside the Lucknow District Court premises (on Tuesday).
The Court observed that the issue should no longer remain an interlocutory application IA in a pending criminal writ petition.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday came down heavily on the conduct of the police personnel while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning an incident in Lucknow in which persons allegedly dressed as advocates were accused of trespass, vandalism and hooliganism in the presence of police personnel.
Questioning the apparent inaction of the Lucknow police personnel present at the spot, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla asked:
"Why were the police mute spectators when such an incident was taking place? Why was additional force not called and the persons not apprehended..."
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Friday summoned Uttar Pradesh Principal Secretary Home Sanjay Prasad to appear in person in a contempt application alleging non-compliance with a Division Bench judgment directing payment of compensation in a custodial death case and framing of guidelines for awarding compensation in such cases
Dealing with the contempt plea, a bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania observed that the State had failed to comply with two key directions issued by the Division Bench in its judgment dated February 20 2026.
