Disposed¶9

Smt. Priti Uttam and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2025WRIC/1173/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection and marital-life mandamus refused for want of serious threat perception; Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 1173 of 2025, Saurabh Srivastava J., decided 5.4.2025; petitioners' representation before Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar; observation on Section 175(3) BNSS; petition disposed of, no relief granted; security not claimable as of right without serious threat.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶3

Smt. Priti Uttam and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life. +1 more

¶2

Ratio / Principle

¶3

Key takeaways

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to them.ratio¶4
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.obiter¶5
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:48984) disposed of a writ petition (WRIT - C No. 1173 of 2025) in which Smt. Priti Uttam and another sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. Perusing the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and no material indicating that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, nor any evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault; accordingly, no order of police protection was warranted. The Court observed that while it can provide security to a couple in a deserving case, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without a serious threat, recourse otherwise lying with the courts and police authorities. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, the Court left it to the concerned police to do the needful in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found, observing also the absence of any averment regarding institution of a case under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of; no relief granted.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48984

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1173 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Priti Uttam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

By way of the present writ petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful marital life of petitioners, has been sought.

¶8

Upon perusal of the pleadings, this Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and, therefore, there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them.

¶9

There is no material or reason for this Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril. There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.

¶10

In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.

¶11

If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but they cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

¶12

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶13

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of information preferred before the concerned police authorities for lodging any FIR against any illegal conduct carried out by the private respondents, if that be so, and no heed has ever been paid by the concerned police authorities, there is no specific averment available in the petition that any case has been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶14

In view thereof, no case made out for seeking indulgence of the Court over the prayer as made in the petition, hence, the same is hereby disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Rakesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Priti Uttam and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priti Uttam and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pratiksha Kumari @ Prateeksha Pal and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Muskan Raj and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Sandhya and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manish Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. and Another

Mister and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another