Disposed¶15

Smt Saayba and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2025WRIC/19073/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 77), WRIT - C No. 19073 of 2025, Smt Saayba And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, decided 28.7.2025 by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:124672. Mandamus sought against interference with peaceful marital life / for police protection; refused for want of serious threat perception; security not claimable as of right; representation before SP Sambhal noted; no averment re Section 175(3) BNSS; petition disposed of. Counsel: Pankaj Sharma and Prashant Sharma for petitioners; C.S.C. for State-respondents.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no requirement to pass any order providing police protection to them. ¶3

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (and, implicitly, to provide police protection to them).

¶2

Court's answer

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

¶3

Ratio / Principle

There was no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril.

¶4

Key takeaways

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 a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶5
Courts and police authorities are available to rescue a couple if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life. Held: on the pleadings there was no serious threat perception and no material showing the petitioners' life or liberty to be at peril; not even an iota of evidence suggested the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to assault them. While a Court may provide security to a couple in a deserving case, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat; recourse lies to the courts and police authorities if any person misbehaves with them. The Court noted the petitioners' pending representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal (to be acted upon if a real threat perception is found) and the absence of any averment regarding institution of a case under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124672

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19073 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Saayba And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma 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, Sambhal 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

¶14

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 :- 28.7.2025 Rakesh

¶17

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

Smt Saayba and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saayba 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

Sandeep Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Priyanka and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Lal Bahadur and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Priyanshi and Another vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Smt. Rajani and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Shashi and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others