Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 1 – July 7, 2024

Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414

Kailash vs state of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415

S. Vignesh Shishir vs. Rahul Gandhi, Member Of Lok Sabha And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416

Ibne Haidar And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417

State Of U.P. And Others vs. M/S Harish Chandra India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418

M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419

Priyanka Agarwal v. Abhishek Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420

Orders/Judgments of the Week

[Domestic Violence Act] Permissible Amendments, Additional Reliefs U/S 12 Can Be Sought By Fresh Application U/S 23: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414

The Allahabad High Court has held that amendments and additional reliefs permissible under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would be maintainable in the form of a fresh application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“Where in the application under Section 12, permissible amendment in view of subsequent developments or otherwise is made and additional permissible relief is sought, a fresh application under Section 23 would be maintainable,” held Justice Jayant Banerjee.

India's Majority Population Would Be In Minority One Day If Conversions In Religious Congregations Not Stopped: Allahabad HC

Case title – Kailash vs state of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415

The Allahabad High Court observed that if the current trend of conversions during religious congregations is permitted to continue, the majority population of the country could eventually find itself in the minority one day.

With this observation, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal stated that the religious congregations, where conversions are occurring and where the religions of the citizens of India are being changed, should be immediately stopped.

'Approach Competent Authority': Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Challenging LoP Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Election

Case title - S. Vignesh Shishir vs. Rahul Gandhi, Member Of Lok Sabha And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416

The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Plea to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat.

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the PIL plea as withdrawn while allowing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as far as it is permissible in law.

Increased Awareness About Rights, Powers & Duties Led To 'Steep' Rise In Criminal Cases Lodged By SC/ST Community: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ibne Haidar And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7191 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417

The Allahabad High Court has noted a significant increase in the number of criminal cases lodged by members of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) community.

A bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai noted that this upsurge could be attributed to the heightened awareness among the SC/ST Community regarding their rights, powers, and duties, facilitated by the proliferation of electronic and social media, even in remote village areas.

Take Steps To Avoid Delays In Filing Arbitration Appeals: Allahabad High Court To State's Principal Law Secretary

Case Title: State Of U.P. And Others vs. M/S Harish Chandra India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. – 425 of 2013]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh to take steps to avoid delays in filing arbitration appeals beyond statutory limitations by the State Government and submit a report on the actions taken in this regard within 6 months.

While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh with a delay of 224 days, beyond the statutory period of 120 days, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that government must not be given preferential treatment in litigation and must adhere strictly to the timelines provided in the statute, irrespective of their status or resources. Further, the Court held that the bureaucratic and procedural delays cited by the Government cannot be accepted as valid reasons for condoning delays beyond statutory prescriptions.

No Provisions Of Appeal Provided Against An Order Passed By State GST Officer Under IGST Act: Allahabad High Court Admits Writ Petition

Case Title: M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419

The Allahabad High Court has admitted the writ petition stating that the IGST Act lacks provision for appeals provided against an order passed by the state GST Officer.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta while admitting the writ petition noted that order passed under the IGST Act, the appeal shall lie before the Central Tax Officer. However, Section 6(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the Central Tax Officers to entertain the appeal against an order passed by an officer appointed under the UPGST Act. Therefore, the Central Tax Officer does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against an order passed by an officer appointed under the UPGST Act, 2017.

“Child's Natural Right To Know And Meet His Parents Is Near Perfect”: Allahabad High Court Upholds Visitation Rights Of Father

Case Title: Priyanka Agarwal v. Abhishek Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 576 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420

The Allahabad High Court has held that a child has the right to know and meet his parents, including the father during the pendency of the custody case before the Trial Court.

The mother approached the High Court against the order of Family Court allowing the father to meet their son on one Sunday of every month in a public place for three hours. The mother challenged the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Principal Judge.

Allahabad HC Raises Concern Over Misuse Of POCSO Act Against Teenagers Involved In Consensual Romantic Relations

Case title - Satish Alias Chand vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 421

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 421

The Allahabad High Court raised concerns over the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, particularly in consensual romantic relationships between teenagers.

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal added that while dealing with such cases, the challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine cases of exploitation and those involving consensual relationships, and this requires a "nuanced approach" and "careful judicial consideration" to ensure that justice is served appropriately.

Marriage Not Presumed To Be Irretrievably Broken Down When There Is Long Separation; Voluntary Desertion, Other Factors Necessary: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Rani Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 153 of 2016]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 422

The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage cannot be presumed irretrievably broken down just because there has been a long separation period between the parties. It has been held that voluntary desertion along with other circumstances need to be seen to conclude that divorce can be granted on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that

“The decisions of the Supreme Court do not lay down a rule of thumb that the marriage may be presumed to be irretrievably broken down if the parties have suffered separation for any length of time. Only where one of the parties is seen to have voluntarily deserted the other and parties have continued in that status for long period of time then in view of the other attending circumstances as may indicate to the Court that there is no substance in the marriage, a conclusion may be reached that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down.”