Disposed¶15

Smt Pinki and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2025WRIC/14057/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court writ petition disposed of; mandamus for non-interference in peaceful marital life and police protection refused for want of serious threat perception; security not claimable as of right; representation before SP/SSP Jalaun; no averment of Section 175(3) BNSS proceeding; decided 13.5.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:78878.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore there is no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them. ¶8

Smt Pinki and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should grant a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners (i.e., provide police protection/security).

¶7

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore there is no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

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

¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶10
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue.ratio¶11
Since the petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 14057 of 2025) by Smt Pinki and another seeking a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) found no serious threat perception on the pleadings and no iota of evidence that the private respondents were likely to cause physical or mental assault, observing that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat, though in a deserving case security may be provided. Noting the petitioners' pending representation before the SP/SSP, Jalaun (police to act per law if a real threat is found) and the absence of any averment regarding a case under Section 175(3) BNSS, the petition was disposed of on 13.5.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78878

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14057 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Pinki And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dipak Kumar Tiwari 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 Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalaun and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶13

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Pinki and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pinki and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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