Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 8 To July 14, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423 Tarun Goel vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424 Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425 Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426 Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427 M/S Kashi Ram Ved Prakash vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428 Shoeb Akhtar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429 Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430 Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas And Another v. Administrator General,Uttar Pradesh And 22 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 431 Munna vs. State Of Up. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432 Kanchan Rawat And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433 Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Thru. Its Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Financial Services Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 434 Nyaydhish Pankaj vs. Allahabad High Court And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435 Orders/Judgments of the Week 'Matter Of Policy': Allahabad HC Disposes PIL To Extend Benefit Of Schemes Meant For SC-STs/OBCs To BPL Card Holders Case title - Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423 The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought to extend the benefits of schemes exclusively meant for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Minorities to Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholders of all other communities/castes. A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, emphasising the limits of judicial review in policy matters, concluded that such decisions fall within the purview of the legislative and executive branches of government. 'He Is 45, Has 2 Children & Wife To Support' : Allahabad HC Commutes Death Sentence Of Convict Who Killed Grandmother-In-Law Case title - Tarun Goel vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424 Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424 The Allahabad High Court last week commuted the death sentence of a 45-year-old convict who killed his wife's grandmother with a screwdriver in 2022 to life imprisonment as it noted that he has two children and a wife to support and that it was not a "rarest of rare" case. While answering the death reference in negative, a bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus: “…the finding of the trial court on order of sentence is modified as it is not a “rarest of rare” case, even though the accused has committed a grave offence of murder, therefore, we are of the opinion that the death penalty awarded to the appellant should be commuted to the life imprisonment.” Court Within Whose Jurisdiction First Wife Has Taken Up Permanent Residence Can Try Offences U/S 494/495 IPC: Allahabad HC Case title - Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425 The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the court within whose jurisdiction the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can try those offences. A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus in view of the mandate of Section 182 (2)CrPC, which states that offences punishable under Sections 494 or 495 IPC can be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or where the offender last resided with their first spouse, or where the first spouse has taken up permanent residence after the offence. Mere Allegation Of Wife Ousting Husband From Matrimonial Home Not Enough To Show Desertion, He Must Show Attempts To Get Back: Allahabad HC Case Title: Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 181 of 2019] Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426 The Allahabad High Court has held that a mere allegation of the wife ousting the husband from the matrimonial home is not sufficient to show 'desertion' by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that the husband must show that he tried to return to the house. The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held, “Except for making allegations that the respondent declared that she shall alone stay in the house, nothing has been indicated with regard to efforts made by the appellant to get back in the matrimonial home and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been desertion on the part of respondent so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act.” ...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 8 To July 14, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags