The Chhattisgarh

Tag: Allahabad High Court

  • Allahabad HC Rules Maintaining A List Of Gifts Received At Wedding, Know-Why? |

    The Allahabad High Court ruled that keeping a list of gifts received by the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage, as required by Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, is critical to preventing false allegations of dowry in subsequent disputes. “Maintaining the list is also important so that both parties to the marriage and their family members do not later make false allegations about taking or giving dowry in a marriage. The arrangement made by the Dowry Prohibition Act may also help in subsequent litigation between the parties to determine whether the allegations regarding the taking or giving of dowry are covered by the exception carved out under section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,” Justice Vikram D. Chauhan said.

    Section 3 of the Act imposes penalties for giving or receiving dowry, including imprisonment for not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than Rs 50,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that presents given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage and not demanded are not considered ‘dowry’, provided that a list of such gifts received by either person is kept in accordance with the rules.

    Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 specifies how the list of gifts under Section 3(2) is to be maintained.

    “The Central government framed the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 in this regard, as gifts and presents serve as a token of celebration and honour in the Indian marriage system. The legislature was aware of the Indian tradition, and thus the aforementioned exception was carved out. The aforementioned list would also serve as a means of resolving dowry allegations that are later raised in matrimonial disputes, according to the court.

    The court observed that Section 8B requires the appointment of a Dowry Prohibition Officer for the purpose of implementing the Act and, as a result, requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary as to how many Dowry Prohibition Officers have been appointed in the state and, if not, why they have not been appointed at a time when dowry cases are increasing. The next hearing in the case will be held on May 23.

  • Gyanvapi Mosque Case: Allahabad HC Upholds Varanasi Court Order Allowing Hindu Side To Offer Prayer In Vyas Tehkhana |

    The Allahabad High Court today upheld the Varanasi Court order allowing Hindu side to offer prayer in ‘Vyas Ka Tehkhana’ in the Gyanvapi Mosque. The High Court refused to put a stay on the Varanasi court’s order and the Muslim side said that they will file a caveat in the Supreme Court against the order. 

    Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who represented the Hindu side said, “Today, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the first appeal from orders of Anjuman Intezamia wherein the order of 17th and 31st January passed by Varanasi District Court was under challenge before Allahabad High Court. The crux of the matter is that the ongoing puja in the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’ of Gyanvapi complex will continue.”

    The Allahabad High Court delivered the verdict on an appeal filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (AIMC) in which the Muslim side challenged the order of Varanasi District Judge allowing Hindu devotees to offer prayers inside the ‘Vyas Ka Tehkhana’ area in the Gyanvapi mosque complex. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of Allahabad High Court delievered the judgement today after reserving the decision during the last hearing. The mosque has four ‘tahkhanas’ (cellars) in the basement, of which one is still in the possession of the Vyas family, who used to live there.

    Reacting to the judgement, Advocate Prabhash Pandey said that as per the order, Varanasi District Magistrate will continue as the Receiver of the ‘tehkhana’.

    Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, said, “It is a decision worth welcoming. The right that Hindus have to perform puja has been maintained by the High Court. Hindus were performing puja in the Vyas Tehkhana until 1993, but they were stopped unlawfully. They (the Muslim side) can move Supreme Court, but we are also ready to oppose.”

    On January 31, the Varanasi district court allowed the Hindu side to offer prayers in the southern cellar of Gyanvapi mosque. The court directed the Varanasi district magistrate to make arrangements within seven days for ‘puja’ to be performed by the Hindu side and a pujari (priest) nominated by Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust.

  • Allahabad HC Refuses To Stay Varanasi Court’s Order Allowing Puja In Gyanvapi Mosque’s Tehkhana |

    New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court on Friday rejected the plea of the Masjid Intezamia Committee of Gyanvapi mosque to stay the order of the Varanasi district court that permitted the Hindu side to perform puja in the southern cellar of the mosque. The High Court gave time to the committee till February 6 to amend its appeal and challenge the earlier order of January 17, 2024, by which the District Magistrate of Varanasi was appointed as the receiver of the Gyanvapi premises. The next hearing of the case will be on February 6.

    The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Aggarwal observed that the committee should first question the validity of the January 17 order, following which the DM took possession of the Gyanvapi premises on January 23 and allowed the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust to conduct puja in the basement through a priest by an interim order dated January 31.

    The committee’s lawyer, SFA Naqvi, argued that he had to approach the High Court urgently due to the January 31 order, as the DM made arrangements overnight and started the puja within nine hours. He said that he would also challenge the January 17 order, which he claimed was illegal and arbitrary.

    The Hindu side’s lawyer, Vishnu Shankar Jain, opposed the appeal and said that it was not maintainable as the original order of January 17 was not challenged. He said that the subordinate court did not grant any relief to the plaintiff, but only delegated the authority to the temple trust.

    The committee had also moved the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, but the apex court advised them to go to the High Court first.

    Puja and aarti performed in the cellar on Thursday

    Meanwhile, following the order of the Varanasi district court, the Hindu side performed puja and aarti in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque on Thursday morning. The court had directed the DM to make arrangements within seven days for the puja to be performed by the Hindu side and a priest nominated by the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust.

    The court had passed the order on the petition of Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas, the head priest of Acharya Ved Vyas Peeth temple, who sought permission to worship Shringar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities in the cellar of the mosque. Vyas belongs to the family that used to perform puja in the cellar till December 1993, when it was closed by the authorities. He claimed that his maternal grandfather, priest Somnath Vyas, was the hereditary pujari of the cellar.

    The Muslim side’s lawyer, Akhlaq Ahmed, expressed his dissatisfaction with the order and said that it ignored the Advocate Commissioner report of 2022, the ASI report, and the decision of 1937, which were in favour of the mosque. He said that the Hindu side did not produce any evidence that they had performed puja in the cellar before 1993. He also said that there was no idol of any deity in the place.

    The Gyanvapi mosque has four cellars in the basement, out of which one is still in the possession of the Vyas family, who used to reside there. The ASI survey, ordered by the same court in a related case, indicated that the mosque was built during Aurangzeb’s reign over the ruins of a Hindu temple.

  • Hindu marriage is not valid without seven rounds: Allahabad High Court

    Hindu marriage is not valid without seven rounds: Allahabad High Court

    Prayagraj:

    Allahabad High Court has said in a case that Hindu marriage is not valid without seven rounds and other rituals. The High Court quashed the entire proceedings of a complaint case in which a husband had alleged that his wife had remarried without obtaining a divorce and hence he should be punished. Accepting the petition of a woman named Smriti Singh, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh said, “It is a settled rule that unless a marriage is solemnized in a proper manner, it is not considered solemnized.”

    The High Court said, “If a marriage is not valid then it is not a marriage in the eyes of law. Saptapadi, under Hindu law, is an essential ingredient of a valid marriage, but this evidence is lacking in the present case.” The High Court relied on Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which states that a Hindu marriage must be solemnized with full rituals, including Saptapadi (seven rounds of the fire by the bride and groom as a witness to the sacred fire) making the marriage complete. Is.

    The High Court canceled the order of April 21, 2022 of the Mirzapur court under which summons was issued to Smriti Singh. The High Court said, “There is no mention of Saptapadi in the complaint. Therefore, in the view of this Court, no criminal case is made out against the applicant as the allegation of second marriage is baseless.” According to the facts, petitioner Smriti Singh was married to a man named Satyam Singh in 2017. But due to bitter relations, Smriti left her in-laws’ house and filed an FIR alleging harassment for dowry. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the husband and in-laws.

    Later, the husband submitted an application to higher police officials accusing his wife of committing a second marriage. On the basis of this application, a detailed investigation was conducted by the Sadar Officer of Mirzapur and the allegation of second marriage was found to be false. After this, the husband filed a complaint against his wife before the concerned magistrate of Mirzapur on September 20, 2021 and accused her of marrying him for the second time. The magistrate issued summons to the petitioner on April 21, 2022. Therefore, Smriti Singh challenged this summons and the entire proceedings of the complaint case in the High Court.

    read this also-

    (Except the headline, this story has not been edited by the NDTV team and is published directly from a syndicated feed.)