Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026

A single judge bench of Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, held as follows,

From Para 21,

21. The present domestic violence case has been filed by the answering respondent after the case filed by applicant no.3. The applicant no.1 also filed a case under Section 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, Haryana on 25.3.2025. The record reveals that there appears to be dispute between the wife and husband and they are litigating against each other, but after a bare perusal of the complaint, other attending circumstances as mentioned above, the Court is coming to the conclusion that applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 of Application U/s 528 BNSS No.1774 of 2025, have no role in the present controversy, therefore, in view of law declared by the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar (supra), criminal proceedings are liable to be dropped against them under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. However, proceedings against applicant no.1 will continue. So far as proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are concerned, the same is also filed against the husband and evidence is to be led over there, therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot interfere in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as summon has been issued against the husband, who has to contest his case before the court below.

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149060733/

Index of Domestic Violence Judgments is here.

Ayush Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Ors 25 Jun 2026

Posted on July 6 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

The other aspect, in this case, is that the petitioner is an Advocate. He can be paid his fee by the Government, by a respectable man or a man who is not so respectable. An Advocate could be defending an accused who is indeed involved in a big scam or fraud but when fee is remitted by such an accused to his learned Counsel in account the money cannot be said to be proceeds of crime. It is the lawful remuneration of the learned counsel which would be duly earned after the engagement is discharged. If for the remittance of any sum of money, an Advocate’s account is frozen describing it as a cyber fraud or the money as proceeds of a cyber fraud or other crime it could become very difficult for Advocates to discharge their professional duties under the Advocates Act. The functioning of the Court itself would be embarrassed.
Let the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow file his own affidavit within two weeks on the issue indicating how seizure of an Advocate’s account, made by sundry officers of the Police, is to be dealt with so as not to interfere with dispensation of justice itself in Courts. It would be quite a different matter, if an Advocate is himself involved in a criminal offence and has credits of money to his account that are proceeds of his own crime.

Ayush Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Ors 25 Jun 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://lawtrend.in/advocates-fee-cannot-be-treated-as-proceeds-of-crime-merely-because-client-is-accused-allahabad-high-court/

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-advocate-professional-fee-accused-not-proceeds-of-crime-bank-freeze-539449

Index

Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 30 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Dr. Garima Dubey & Ors. v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey, the Allahabad High Court addressed whether a highly qualified spouse can claim interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) despite having the capacity to earn.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the husband, a neurosurgeon, filed for divorce, and the wife, a qualified gynaecologist (M.D.), sought maintenance for herself and her children under Sections 24 and 26 HMA. While the trial court granted ₹60,000 per month for the children under Section 26, it denied maintenance to the wife under Section 24.

Challenging this partial rejection, the wife approached the High Court, claiming unemployment and entitlement to maintain the same standard of living. The Court, however, emphasised that earning capacity and qualifications cannot be ignored, particularly where evidence shows substantial prior income.

The Court ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision, reiterating that maintenance is not meant to support voluntary unemployment.

“5. Undisputedly, the appellant is a trained Gynecologist being a Post- Graduate possessing a degree in M.D. (Gynecology)…..”

“6. Where a qualified person is capable of earning more than enough through the use of her expertise and still refrains from doing so only to impose a burden upon her husband, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24. Therefore, having gone through the order passed by the learned trial court where the application under Section 24 was rejected where the learned trial court has held that the appellant was earning handsomely based upon her ITRs which reflected that she was earning more than Rs.31 lakhs per annum.”

“7. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be faulted.”

Decision

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s order, holding that:

The wife, being a highly qualified medical professional, possesses sufficient earning capacity.
Voluntary unemployment cannot be a ground to claim maintenance under Section 24 HMA.
Documentary evidence (ITRs) demonstrated that the wife had substantial prior earnings, weakening her claim of financial dependency.
Maintenance granted to the children under Section 26 HMA was appropriate and continues at ₹60,000 per month.

The Court concluded that the trial court’s decision was legally sound and required no interference.

Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026

Citation : 2026:AHC:88382-DB

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act is here.

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Posted on April 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows on two aspects,

From Paras 9 to 11, (Failed to prove that Wife was ‘unable to maintain herself‘)

9. From the perusal of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is clear that maintenance can be awarded to the wife, when she is unable to maintain herself.
10. A perusal of the paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment which is at internal page no. 12 of the impugned indicates that in the affidavit filed before the trial court, the opposite party no. 2 herself admitted that she is a Post-Graduate, Web Designer by qualification, and is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., getting salary of Rs. 34,000/- per month but in her cross-examination she has further admitted that she is earning of Rs. 36,000/- per month and such amount, for a wife who has no other liability, cannot be said to be meagre, whereas the revisionist has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations.
11. Thus, this Court is of the view that as per the provision of Section 125(1) (a), the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband/revisionist as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself.

From Paras 12 to 15,

12. On the second issue, learned counsel for the revisionist has alleged that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 at page no. 67-70 clearly reflects that she has not mentioned that she is an earning lady as well as a perusal of application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. paper no. 33 to 38 at paragraph no. 16 reflects that she has claimed herself as an illiterate and unemployed woman but when the document filed by the revisionist was shown to her before the trial court, she has admitted her aforesaid income during her cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands.
13. It is settled law that when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. It is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. The judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. If a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC641, para no. 11 is reproduced herein below:
“11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.”
15. In view of the said judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, the opposite party no. 2 does not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist.

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Section 144 BNSS here.

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Posted on April 3 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Mariya Zafar v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) addressed whether a Magistrate can reject an application seeking production of financial documents under Section 91 CrPC (now Section 94 BNSS) in a domestic violence proceeding.

The petitioner-wife alleged domestic violence, dowry harassment, and financial suppression by her husband. She sought disclosure of his bank accounts, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), and GST records to determine his actual income for maintenance proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

However, the trial court rejected her application, stating that concealment could instead be dealt with under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS). Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court emphasized compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, which mandates full financial disclosure in maintenance matters. After examining the husband’s ITRs (produced in sealed cover), the Court found that he had misrepresented his occupation and income. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed reconsideration.

“11.“…the court below has observed that there is no need to summon the Income Tax Returns of opposite party No. 2 to ascertain the income and the reason has been recorded that in case the opposite party is concealing the material fact, then he will be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
“14….the opposite party No. 3 is directed to bring the income tax return of the last two years filed by the opposite party No. 2…”
“15.ITRs of opp. party No. 2… indicate that the opposite party No. 2 is an Architect… in the AY 2023-24 his total income was Rs. 4,85,290.00 and in the AY 2024-25 his income was Rs. 5,07,680.00.”
“17. ..the order dated 19-01-2026… is hereby set aside and the said court is directed to take fresh decision in the matter in the light of judgment… within 6 weeks…”

Decision

The Allahabad High Court:

Set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 19.01.2026.
Directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) in light of Rajnesh v. Neha.
Ordered that the matter be decided within 6 weeks.
Allowed the petitioner access to the respondent’s ITRs.
Emphasised the importance of truthful financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings.

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Domestic Violence judgments is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Financial Disclosure in Maintenance Proceedings
Summoning of Documents
Burden of Proof
Judicial Duty to Ensure Fair Maintenance Adjudication
Enforcement of Supreme Court Guidelines (Rajnesh v. Neha)

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Posted on March 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Allahabad High Court held that when a party files an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging false affidavit, the Family Court must decide that application before proceeding with the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that failure to do so vitiates the maintenance order if it relies on the disputed affidavit. The High Court set aside the maintenance order and directed the Family Court to first decide the perjury application within a fixed time frame.

“It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Family Court without deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has proceeded with the case and decided the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and maintenance has been awarded on relying the false affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.”

“Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.”

“In view of above the criminal revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.- 502 of 2020 is set aside.”

“Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1/court concerned is directed to decide the application filed by revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Application No. 473 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and thereafter the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either of the parties unless there is any legal impediments.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal revision.

It set aside the maintenance order.
It directed the Family Court to first decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application.
It ordered that the maintenance case proceed only thereafter.

Amit Bajpai Vs State of UP on 15 Dec 2023

Citation: [2023:AHC:238266]

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com.,LL.B.,LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

The Karnataka High Court held that when a court records a specific finding that a party suppressed material facts on oath, it cannot dismiss a perjury application as premature merely because the main case remains pending. The Court ruled that allegations of false evidence affect the purity of judicial proceedings and require prompt consideration. It set aside the Family Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s decision.

Para 4(a):
“…If these IT Returns are taken into consideration, the respondent is having income and she is also earning income… She has not filed any counter to the objections filed by the petitioner and also with respect to these IT Returns. In fact, by filing a complaint she has admitted that she has filed Income Tax Returns… Under such circumstances, she has suppressed the fact that she was earning income…”
Para 4(b):
“…when the Court below has recorded a specific finding as to the income of the respondent from the medical profession that too on the basis of undisputed IT Returns for the relevant period; when it has also recorded a specific finding that the respondent has suppressed the fact that she was earning income; that being the position, the application of petitioner for initiating action for the offence of perjury, could not have been turned down as being premature merely because main matter is still pending…”
Para 4(c):
“…act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies; consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred or delayed; otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted.”
Para 4(e):
“…applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would befall the perjuring parties.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition.

It set aside the Family Court’s order.
It remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the perjury application.
It directed that the main matrimonial case remain in abeyance until such consideration.

All contentions remained open.

Praveen R Vs Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

Citation :2021:KHC:33333

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist had filed written submissions before the trial court specifically alleging that opposite party no. 2 was living in adultery with one Rocky @ Tarun. However, the trial court did not consider the said allegation on the ground that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed in support of the electronic evidence.

From Para 7,

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the record and the order passed by the trial court, it appears that the WhatsApp chats annexed by the revisionist were not accepted solely on the ground that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had not been submitted. However, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it in effectively dealing with a dispute, whether or not such evidence would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes, the Family Court may lay down its own procedure.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Citations: [2026:AHC:34917]

Other Sources:

https://lawtrend.in/family-court-must-consider-whatsapp-chat-indicating-adultery-even-without-section-65-b-certificate-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-maintenance/

Index

Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026

Posted on January 31 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 14,

14. In this case, the Investigating Officer, investigated the matter and found that, no case has been made out against the wife/accused-applicant under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C., and thereafter, he prepared the police report/final report (closure report) on 19.06.2024 under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 193(3) BNSS) and submitted the report in the court of Magistrate, without a written complaint of offence committed under Section 177 and 182 IPC (Corresponding Section 212 and 217 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in respect of furnishing false information, as provided under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 215(1)(a) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

From Para 15,

15. Sections 177 and 182 IPC (Corresponding to sections 212 and 217 of B.N.S.) cannot be made redundant, that is to say that, in case any false information is furnished with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to injury of another person, the Investigating Officer shall also prepare a police report in form of complaint as provided/required under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215(1)(a) BNSS). Thus, giving a false information to police to lodge an F.I.R. or N.C.R. attracts offence provided under Section 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding Section 212 and 217 BNS) and if after investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that no such incident occurred as alleged in the F.I.R. or N.C.R., the Investigating Officer is under statutory obligation, not only to submit a final report/closure report but also to submit a report of offence of Section 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding Section 212 and 217 BNS) in form of complaint as provided, under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215(1)(a) of BNSS) for taking cognizance. Otherwise, the concerned police officers are liable for committing an offence as mentioned under Section 199 (b) BNS (corresponding Section 166A(b) of Cr.P.C.).

From Para 18,

18. The offence is always against the State therefore, if the Investigating Officer is submitting police report/final report(closure report) under section 193(3) BNSS (corresponding Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.), he shall also submit police report in form of written complaint under section 212 and 217 BNS (Corresponding Sections 177 and 182 IPC), against the informant and witnesses. The format of police report, in form of written complaint under section 212 and 217 BNS (Corresponding Sections 177 and 182 IPC) as provided under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (Corresponding Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C.), in case of false information, to police to use his lawful power to injury any person, in Hindi language as well as in English language are delineated below.

From Para 21,

21. In case of false first information report, if a written complaint against the informant and witness under section 215(1)(a) BNSS (corresponding section 195(1) (a) Cr.P.C.) is not filed by the Investigating Officer, under section 212 and 217 BNS (corresponding section 177 and 182 of I.P.C.) for giving false information to the police then it will amount that the Investigating Officer, Station House Officer, Circle Officer of the area and the prosecuting officer concerned are not discharging their official duty and liable to departmental proceedings as well as contempt proceedings.

Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025

Posted on January 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held that, perjury applications must be disposed first before deciding maintenance petitions when allegations of adultery are alleged.

From Paras 9 to 11,

9. In the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C., it has been alleged that since the marriage, the behaviour of the opposite party no.2 towards the revisionist and his family members was very bad. She used to abuse the revisionist and always ready to fight and quarrel. It is also alleged that she used to receive dirty and obscene messages and videos through her mobile phone and she also exchanged obscene conversations and messages with so many persons like Shakeel Ahmed, Nikhil Varshney, Haider, Ashwin etc. In support of said allegations, the revisionist has enclosed the list of names along with mobile numbers along with the said application. The daughters of the revisionist also disclosed to the revisionist that in his absence, some persons come to his house to meet opposite party no.2 and she used to get them locked in another room along with herself and used to spend one or two hours with that person in that room. At that time, the daughters used to hear dirty words and sounds from inside the locked room. It is then alleged that seeing obscene acts of opposite party no.2 and thinking about the future of his children, the revisionist was forced to take both his daughters to his ancestral home at Lucknow and got them admitted in a good school there and both the daughters of the revisionist are getting their education there.
10. It is further alleged in the said application that opposite party no.2 makes nude videos of her body and sends them to other persons. A person made a C.D. of nude videos of the opposite party no.2 and gave it to the revisionist. Opposite party no.2 watches donkey sex videos. The nude videos and voice recordings of the opposite party’s conversations are captured in the said C.D., which has also been enclosed along with the said application. It is pertinent to mention here that daughter of opposite party no.2, namely, Nadiya Khan as D.W.-1 in her affidavit i.e. examination-in-chief filed before the trial court in the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as also in the cross-examination, who is living with the revisionist along with her younger sister has supported the aforesaid allegations as made by the revisionist in his application under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2.
11. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 is an educated woman, having degrees of B.Tech and M.B.A. She has also worked in Dubai and there too the opposite party no.2 had illicit relations with other men. Despite being married and mother of two daughters, she used to talk vulgarly with other men, which is clearly proved by the audio recording.

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025

Index to Perjury Judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification

Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026

Ayush Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Ors 25 Jun 2026

Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Decision

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025