Disposed¶9

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

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025WRIC/19256/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 19256 of 2025) before the Allahabad High Court, decided September 10, 2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.; petitioners Smt Sonam and another sought mandamus against State of U.P. and 3 others for non-interference in peaceful marital life/police protection; disposed of on finding no serious threat perception; security held not claimable as of right without serious threat; reference to representation before SP/SSP Hathras and Section 175(3) of BNSS.

What did the court decide?

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

Smt Sonam 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 be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners.

¶2

Court's answer

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

¶3

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 the petitioners.

¶4

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶5
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, 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.ratio¶6
Observation that petitioners have already moved a representation before the SP/SSP Hathras; in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of Writ-C No. 19256 of 2025 (Smt Sonam and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others), in which the petitioners sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception on perusal of the pleadings and no material showing the petitioners' life and liberty at peril, held that security may be given in a deserving case but cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat, noted the pending representation before the SP/SSP Hathras (police to act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found), and observed the absence of any specific averment regarding institution of a case under Section 175(3) of BNSS. No order of police protection was passed and no relief was granted.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 19256 of 2025

¶3

Smt Sonam And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ram Neta Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Hathras and in case the concerned police finds a real threat

¶16

WRIC No. 19256 of 2025

¶17

¶18

perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶22

September 10, 2025 #Vik/-

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sonam 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