A cinema chain has been told by a consumer commission that stretching pre-show advertisements well past the advertised start time is an unfair trade practice. The rest of the day was dominated by the Allahabad High Court, with rulings on inflation-linked maintenance, social media chats as evidence of adultery, rent appeals under the new UP tenancy law and the limits of writ petitions against private schools. The Madras High Court also clarified that owning property does not, by itself, defeat a claim for maintenance.
Cinema Chain Penalised for Delaying a Film With 22 Minutes of Ads
On 3 October 2026, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (President Vakkanti Narasimha Rao and Member Suma Vala) decided a complaint by Chanda Athish Kumar against PVR Cinemas and PVR INOX Ltd. He had booked a 10:35 pm show of the Telugu film Kubera in June 2025, but advertisements, trailers and awareness films ran until the feature began about 22 minutes late, and he reached home after 3 am.
What the commission held: Projecting a show time and then using it to run excessive non-essential advertisements amounts to both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The cinema’s argument based on its rights as a private property owner was rejected. The chain was directed to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs to the complainant, plus Rs 50,000 as punitive damages to the District Consumer Welfare Fund, with 9% annual interest if payment is delayed.
What it means for you: The time printed on your ticket is a representation by the seller, and a long, unannounced gap filled with ads can be challenged before a consumer commission. Keep your ticket, note the actual start time and, if possible, record it. For businesses in hospitality, events and entertainment, the order is a reminder that advertised timings must broadly match reality; disclose pre-show content clearly if it will run long. This is a district-level order and can be appealed, so it is persuasive rather than binding elsewhere. Related help: Consumer Protection.
Allahabad HC: Rent Appeal Deposits Must Continue Month After Month
In Rajasthan Motors v. State of U.P. and Others, decided on 2 October 2026, Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court examined the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, which requires a 50% pre-deposit before an appeal can be heard. The tenant had deposited half of the monthly rent fixed by the authority at the time of filing and argued that the requirement was then satisfied.
What the court held: Where the order under appeal creates a recurring monthly liability, the pre-deposit obligation is not exhausted on the day the appeal is filed. The tenant must keep depositing 50% of the rent as each month falls due while the appeal is pending. Otherwise a tenant could stay in the premises practically rent-free by simply filing an appeal.
What it means for you: Tenants in Uttar Pradesh who appeal a rent order should budget for ongoing monthly deposits, not a one-time payment, or risk their appeal being affected. Landlords can point to this ruling if deposits stop after filing. Both sides should maintain clear records of every deposit made. Related help: Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law.
Allahabad HC Approves 10% Yearly Increase in Wife’s Maintenance
In Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another, decided on 2 October 2026, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla of the Allahabad High Court heard a husband’s revision against a Prayagraj Family Court order under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court had awarded Rs 3,000 a month from the date of application and Rs 4,000 a month from the date of its order, with a 10% increase every year after that. The husband did not dispute the marriage or his wife’s inability to support herself; he objected only to the automatic annual increase.
What the court held: The revision was dismissed and the escalation clause upheld. The court reasoned that a fixed sum steadily loses value to inflation, leaving the dependant unable to meet basic needs, and that a built-in increase saves both parties from returning to court again and again for revision. The judge called the Family Court’s approach an “innovative thought” that deserved appreciation.
What it means for you: Spouses seeking maintenance in Uttar Pradesh may now ask the Family Court to build an annual increase into the order, which can make a long-running award more realistic. Those paying maintenance should expect that such clauses may be upheld and plan accordingly; a party whose finances change sharply can still apply for modification. Related help: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes.
Instagram Messages Alone Do Not Prove a Wife Is ‘Living in Adultery’
In SK v. State of U.P. and Another, decided on 2 October 2026, Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay of the Allahabad High Court dealt with a husband’s challenge to a maintenance order. He argued that his wife was barred from maintenance because she was “living in adultery”, a ground recognised under Section 125 CrPC and now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). His only proof was printouts of Instagram direct messages said to be between his wife and another man.
What the court held: “Living in adultery” means a continuous, habitual course of conduct, not an isolated lapse. Social media chats without supporting evidence of cohabitation or physical intimacy are not enough to establish it. The court also noted that the printouts lacked the certificate required by law for electronic evidence. The maintenance order was left undisturbed.
What it means for you: Screenshots and chat printouts are rarely enough on their own in matrimonial cases. If digital evidence is relied on, it must be properly certified and backed by other material. For wives, the ruling confirms that unverified allegations based on messages will not easily defeat a maintenance claim. Related help: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes and Cyber Law & Data Protection.
Teacher’s Termination by Private Unaided Trust Cannot Be Challenged in Writ
In Nootan Rai v. Union of India and Others, decided on 2 October 2026, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan of the Allahabad High Court considered a writ petition by a teacher whose services were ended by a private, unaided educational trust that runs a free school without government aid or statutory recognition.
What the court held: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The court drew a line between whether a private body can ever be subject to writ jurisdiction and whether a particular claim against it can be pursued that way. Even if an institution performs a public function such as education, a dispute over a private contract of employment, with no statute governing service conditions, belongs in ordinary civil remedies and not under Article 226.
What it means for you: Staff of private unaided schools and trusts should check whether their service conditions are governed by any statute or regulation before choosing a forum; where they are not, a civil suit or a contractual remedy is usually the correct route, and time limits for those remedies matter. Institutions should keep written appointment and termination terms clear. Related help: Labour & Employment Law.
Madras HC: Owning a Flat and Cars Does Not Rule Out Maintenance
On 3 October 2026, Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court upheld a Family Court order directing a man to pay Rs 1 lakh a month to a woman and Rs 1.5 lakh a month for their minor son under Section 125 CrPC. The woman said she married him in 2020 believing he was divorced, though he was in fact still married; their son was born in 2021 and he stopped contact in 2022. He argued there was no valid marriage and that she owned a flat worth about Rs 1.7 crore and two luxury cars.
What the court held: Owning property does not defeat a maintenance claim where the claimant has no regular income. Strict proof of marriage is not required at this stage; a long and continuous relationship can raise a presumption of marriage, and here the child’s birth certificate, Aadhaar records and photographs showed continuity. The man’s income, assessed at Rs 10 lakh a month, was not disputed.
What it means for you: Courts look at regular income and the standard of living, not just assets on paper, when deciding maintenance. Documents showing a shared life, such as a child’s records and photographs, can be important where the validity of the marriage is questioned. A person who concealed an earlier marriage cannot easily use that fact to escape support obligations. Related help: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, your family or your business, you can arrange a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.