Disposed¶21

Smt. Saima and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025WRIC/19281/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection mandamus writ petition disposed of; no interference with peaceful marital life ordered; no serious threat perception found; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat; representation before SP/SSP Budaun noted; no FIR information or Section 175(3) BNSS proceeding averred; Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 19281 of 2025, Smt. Saima v. State of U.P., Saurabh Srivastava J., September 10, 2025, Budaun, couple protection, life and liberty.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and, therefore, holds there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶12

Smt. Saima and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be restrained by way of mandamus from interfering in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

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

¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶12

Key takeaways

There is no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril.ratio¶13
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue.obiter¶15
The petitioners had already moved a representation before the SP/SSP, Budaun, and if the concerned police perceives a real threat they will do the needful in accordance with law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; decided September 10, 2025) in WRIT - C No. 19281 of 2025, Smt. Saima and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others, disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life. On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception and no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, noting not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault; consequently no order for police protection was passed. The Court observed that while security may be given to a deserving couple, it cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Budaun, the absence of any specific FIR information before police authorities, and the absence of any averment regarding Section 175(3) of BNSS, the Court held no case was made out and disposed of the petition.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 19281 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Saima And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rupesh Kumar Singh .....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, Budaun and in case the concerned police finds a real threat

¶17

WRIC No. 19281 of 2025

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶23

September 10, 2025 #Vik/-

¶24

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

Smt. Saima and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saima and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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