Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 01 To April 07, 2024

Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201

Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202

Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203

Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204

Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205

Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206

Saurabh Mukund vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Its Joint Director Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207

Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208

Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209

Rajendra Prasad Gaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210

Himanshu Kanaujiya vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211

Shiv Sewak Kashyap v. Veerendra Singh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 212

Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213

Shilpa Alias Shikha And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 214

Richa Mumgaie vs. Harendra Prasad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215

Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216

State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217

Gaurav Mehta vs. Anamika Chopra along with a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218

Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik v. State of U.P. And 4 others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 219

Brijmohan Tanwar v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 220

Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Administrative Tribunals Act | Appeal Against CAT Order In Contempt Proceedings Lies Before Supreme Court, Not High Court: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 602 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201

The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal while exercising its contempt jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 lies before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court held that no such order can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Teacher's Service After Regularization Can't Be Terminated Merely Due To Lack Of Qualification At Time Of Initial Appointment: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6145 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202

The Allahabad High Court has held that after a long gap of time, a teacher whose services have been regularised cannot be terminated merely on grounds of lack of qualifications at the time of initial appointment.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajit Kumar held that “once the regularisation of appointment has already taken place, such teacher becomes a permanent member of service and no such teacher's service can be dispensed with on the ground that there were some inherent lack of qualification at the time of initial appointment.”

Husband Can't Claim Deduction Of Insurance Premium, Loan EMI From Gross Salary For Determination Of Maintenance Amount U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1762 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203

The Allahabad High Court held that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, a husband cannot seek deductions for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan instalments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dr Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Rajkumari 1970, a bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I observed that only compulsory statutory deductions as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary of the husband while determining maintenance amount.

Suit For Declaration Of Civil Death Not Barred By S. 34 Specific Relief Act Merely Because Further Relief Wasn't Claimed: Allahabad HC

Case title - Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204 [SECOND APPEAL No. - 428 of 2016]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a suit for mere declaration of civil death is maintainable and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 merely because the plaintiff did not claim further relief.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal further noted that there is no bar under Section 34 of the 1963 Act for filing a suit for the declaration of a civil death of another person if the plaintiff is a legal heir of such a person and such legal character of civil death is for his benefit and the same is attributed to such legal character.

Resignation Tendered By Govt Employee Can Be Withdrawn At Any Time Before Its Acceptance: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a resignation tendered by a government servant can be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance.

A bench of Justice Manjive Shukla observed thus while examining Rules 6 and 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2000, which deal with the matters of resignation from service by government servants.

Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation

Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206

The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against officers who were responsible for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which were filed after a delay of 513 days.

While dismissing the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that “the proceedings have been conducted in reckless manner which is other than bona fide.”

ED Should At Least Provide Substance Of Accusation To Summoned Person If Not A Copy Of ECIR: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Saurabh Mukund vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Its Joint Director Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207

The Allahabad High Court observed that in the normal course, a person summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is entitled to receive at least a summary of the accusations, if not the actual copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).

This allows them to adequately prepare themselves or gather pertinent documents to respond to any inquiries during the interrogation by the ED, a bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan noted.

'Second Wife' Can't Maintain Complaint Against 'Husband' U/S 498A IPC; 'Dowry Prohibition Act' May Get Attracted In Such Cases: Allahabad HC

Case title - Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38288 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208

The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC is not maintainable against a husband at the instance of a 'second wife', however, in such cases, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 may get attracted if there is a demand of dowry.

“…for the dowry, the performance of marriage is not necessary, and even a marriage contract is sufficient. If a male and female contracted for marriage and cohabiting together and the male partner makes any dowry demand from the female partner, then ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted,” ruled a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.

'Begar' Prohibited Under Article 23: Allahabad HC Directs Payment Of Salaries To Multi-Purpose Health Workers For Period Of Work

Case Title: Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209 [WRIT - A No. - 1453 of 2014]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209

While granting relief to Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), the Allahabad High Court has held the 'Begar' is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

“Article 23 of the Constitution of India has wider implications and scope regrading begar i.e. by taking work but not paying for the same which is linked with right to livelihood covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” held Justice Manish Kumar.

'Human/Child Sacrifice Shocks Conscience Of Civilized Society': Allahabad HC Upholds Life Term For Man Who Killed 1-Yr Old Boy

Case title - Rajendra Prasad Gaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 79 of 2005]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210

The Allahabad High Court, while upholding the conviction of a man who killed a 1-year-old child, observed that human/child sacrifice shocks the conscience of civilized society and the same is required to be condemned by one and all.

With these observations, a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi also upheld the life sentence imposed on the 47-year-old man and dismissed his appeal against conviction.

'Unfortunate; Should Be Dealt With Iron Hand': Allahabad HC Concerned Over 'Mushrooming' Of Fake Job Agencies To Exploit Unemployed Youth

Case title - Himanshu Kanaujiya vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211

The Allahabad High Court expressed profound concern over the alarming proliferation of fraudulent manpower consultant agencies and fake recruitment firms across the country.

Describing the mushrooming of such fake agencies as "unfortunate", a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that the youth, without knowing the hidden agenda of such fake rackets, are falling prey to such temptations of lucrative jobs and paying huge amounts even by selling the properties held by their families or availing loans from financial institutions with a high rate of interest.

UP Urban Buildings Act | Amendment/Substitution In Pending Release Application Not A Second Application: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shiv Sewak Kashyap v. Veerendra Singh And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 20193 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 212

The Allahabad High Court has held that filing an amendment application or substitution application in a pending application for release of property from tenant under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 cannot be treated as a second application.

The Court held that in absence of any decision on the merits of first release application, any amendment to it cannot be treated as a second release application under Section 21 of the Act.

Competitive Exams | Can't Hold A Question To Be Wrong As Long As It Can Be Understood By Candidates & Can Be Answered: Allahabad HC

Case title - Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213

The Allahabad High Court has observed that in the matter of public examinations, a question should not be considered wrong solely based on its formulation unless it cannot be understood or answered by the candidate.

While acknowledging the argument that a few questions could be better framed, the Court said that this fact alone does not invalidate them.

“Unless it is shown that the question is wrong or the formulation of question is such that the candidate could not have understood the question or answered it, we would not be justified in interfering with the question itself,” a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed.

UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Prohibits Live-In Relation Between Interfaith Couples: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Shilpa Alias Shikha And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2330 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 214

The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 3(1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 prohibits live-in relationships like a matrimonial bond between couples of different religions.

A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed thus while disposing of a writ petition moved by a Hindu girl and her interfaith partner (petitioner No.2) seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against petitioner no. 2 under Sections 363 & 366 IPC.

S.23(1)(B) Hindu Marriage Act | Divorce Petition Can't Be Dismissed If Acts Of Cruelty Once Condoned By Spouse Are Repeated: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Richa Mumgaie vs. Harendra Prasad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 245 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215

The Allahabad High Court has held that divorce petition cannot be dismissed under Section 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if acts of cruelty which were once condoned by the spouse are repeated.

The Court held that merely because in the petition it was stated that the husband had condoned the adultery and lived with the wife, it cannot be said that subsequent adultery by the wife was condoned. The Court held that one paragraph of the petition cannot be read in isolation to the other averments made in the divorce petition. Since the wife had continued her relationship outside of marriage, the Court held that there was cause of action for filing the divorce petition.

'Kanyadan' Ceremony Not Essential For Solemnization Of A Marriage As Per Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 296 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the ceremony of Kanyadan is not essential for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act.

"Thus, Hindu Marriage Act merely provides saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage," a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed.

Disciplinary Authority Must Record Reasons For Disagreeing With Exoneration To Enable Employee To Defend Himself Effectively: Allahabad HC

Case Title: State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 291 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217

The Allahabad High Court has held that Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for disagreeing with the exoneration by the Inquiry Officer to enable the delinquent employee a chance to effectively defend himself.

The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held

“Recording of reasons in the show cause notice for disagreeing with the opinion of inquiry officer has a definite purpose to subserve. It gives an opportunity to the delinquent employee to offer his explanation on the issues that have weighed with the disciplinary authority. In a case where the disciplinary authority does not record reasons for his disagreement with the opinion of the inquiry officer the delinquent employee will be denuded of his right to effectively explain his defense regarding reasons of disagreement.”

Wife Who Waived Right To Claim Maintenance At Time Of Divorce By Mutual Consent Not Entitled To It Later: Allahabad HC

Case title - Gaurav Mehta vs. Anamika Chopra along with a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4152 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218

The Allahabad High Court has observed that if a woman waives off her right to claim maintenance from her husband at the time of divorce by mutual consent, she cannot later demand the same.

A bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit opined thus while ALLOWING a revision plea moved by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court passed in a plea moved by his wife under Section 125 CrPC directing him to pay Rs.25K per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

Repeatedly Raising Same Issue Amounts To Manipulation & Misleading Of Court: Allahabad High Court Imposes 50K Costs For Filing Motivated PIL

Case Title: Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik v. State of U.P. And 4 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 117 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 219

The Allahabad High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik for filing public interest litigation on the issues already decided by the High Court.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held

“The repeated attempt on part of the petitioner to raise the issue which already stood concluded by filing petitions in one form or the other in the name of Public Interest Litigation cannot be countenanced under any circumstance. The attempts made, as noticed hereinbefore, essentially amount to manipulation and attempt to mislead the Court, which action of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with heavy hand.”

UP Urban Planning & Development | Allowing Illegal Construction By Compounding Is Disturbing; Deviation From Building Bye-Laws Must Stop: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Brijmohan Tanwar v. State Of Up And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5761 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 220

The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure at the practice of development authority allowing illegal constructions to be raised beyond the sanctioned plan and legalizing the same by way of compounding. The Court held that such practice of allowing illegal construction by relaxing and deviating from the building bye-laws must stop.

The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that

“Building bye-laws and plans are supposed to be followed scrupulously so that urban development is allowed in a planned manner. What is, however, disturbing is the practice of allowing constructions in excess of approved plan and thereafter entertaining compounding plans, ostensibly with the purpose of augmenting the financial interest of the development authority.”

'25% Of Monthly Pension As Maintenance To Wife Not Excessive': Allahabad HC Dismisses Husband's Revision Plea

Case Title: Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3032 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221

While treating the pension as the monthly income of the husband, the Allahabad High Court has held that awarding 25% of the monthly income of the husband as maintenance is not excessive.

The Court relied on Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari where the Supreme Court held that

“25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.”