Disposed¶20

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

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025WRIC/19272/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 19272 of 2025; decided September 11, 2025; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Smt. Shilpi and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others; police protection / peaceful marital life mandamus; no serious threat perception; life and liberty not at peril; security not claimable as a matter of course or right without serious threat; deserving case security; representation before SP/SSP Aligarh; Section 175(3) of BNSS averment absent; petition disposed of; counsel Vivek Tripathi (petitioners), C.S.C. (respondents).

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners; consequently there was no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶20

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 (protection/security), in the absence of any serious threat perception.

¶11

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners; consequently there was no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

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

¶13

Key takeaways

Not even an iota of evidence existed to show that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.ratio¶13
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but it cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶14
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; Courts and police authorities remain available to rescue persons who are misbehaved with or manhandled.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT - C No. 19272 of 2025, decided September 11, 2025 - Protection/'peaceful marital life' petition disposed of without relief. Smt. Shilpi and another sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and no requirement of any order providing police protection; no material or reason existed to conclude the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and not even an iota of evidence showed the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) likely to cause physical or mental assault. Held that while in a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, it cannot lend them the support sought, and security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; Courts and police remain available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. The petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Aligarh was noted, the police to act if they find a real threat perception. The Court observed there was no averment of any FIR application or of any case instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. No case made out for the Court's indulgence; petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 19272 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Shilpi And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vivek Tripathi .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 77

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶17

WRIC No. 19272 of 2025

¶18

¶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 11, 2025

¶23

#Vik/-

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shilpi 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