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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners (i.e., whether the Court should grant protection/police protection to the petitioner couple).

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement to pass any order providing police protection to them.

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; there was not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.ratio¶4
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought; they have to learn to support each other and face the society.ratio¶5
While the Courts and police authorities exist to come to the rescue of persons who are misbehaved with or manhandled, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; WRIT - C No. - 1706 of 2025, decided 24.3.2025) disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioner-couple sought a mandamus restraining the respondents (including private respondents who are relatives) from interfering in their peaceful marital life, effectively seeking police protection. Relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 (courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes), the Court held that on the pleadings there was no serious threat perception, no material to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents were likely to cause physical or mental assault. In a deserving case security can be provided, but a couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right and must learn to support each other and face society. Noting the petitioners' earlier representation before the Superintendent of Police, Agra, the Court observed that if the concerned police finds a real threat perception it will do the needful in accordance with law; the petition contained no averment of any case instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS nor any specific application for lodging an FIR. No case having been made out for the Court's indulgence over the prayer, the petition was disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43249

Court No. - 74

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1706 of 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Singh Parmar,Prashant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

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

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.

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 in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) , wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.

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.

In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought. They have to learn to support each other and face the society.

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.

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Agra and in

case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

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.

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 .

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Vivek Kr.

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad