Disposed¶22

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

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2025WRIC/19096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT-C 19096 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Saurabh Srivastava J.; September 23, 2025; Sheela v. State of U.P.; peaceful marital life; mandamus; police protection; threat perception; life and liberty; security as a matter of right; SP/SSP Bareilly representation; FIR; Section 175(3) BNSS; petition disposed of; earlier protection discontinued; fresh assessment by police authority; no interference order granted.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of without ordering police protection. The protection granted earlier was discontinued, with any extension subject to fresh assessment by the concerned police authority. ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the petitioners' peaceful marital life, i.e., provide police protection. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

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

¶13

Ratio / Principle

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

¶14

Key takeaways

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 the petitioners.ratio¶14
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶15
Courts and police authorities stand ready to rescue a couple if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), Writ-C No. 19096 of 2025, Smt. Sheela and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (decided September 23, 2025): Petition seeking a mandamus-type direction that respondents not interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life, effectively requesting police protection. On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception and no material indicating the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; not even an iota of evidence showed the private respondents (their relatives) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court observed that security can be given in a deserving case but cannot be lent as the support sought, and that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat; courts and police remain available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles the couple. Noting the petitioners' earlier representation to the SP/SSP, Bareilly, the Court directed that if the concerned police finds a real threat perception they will do the needful in accordance with law; the petition also contained no specific averment of any case instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. The writ petition was disposed of, and the protection earlier granted to the petitioners was discontinued, any extension being subject to fresh assessment by the concerned police authority.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 19096 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Sheela And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 77

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

Even in the revised call, none appears on behalf of the petitioners, however, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent

¶18

WRIC No. 19096 of 2025

¶19

¶20

of Police, Bareilly and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

However, it is made clear that the protection granted earlier to the petitioners is hereby discontinued and extension shall be subject to fresh assessment made by concerned police authority.

¶24

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

September 23, 2025 #Vik/-

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases