Disposed¶14

Smt. Pooja Kushwaha and Another v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025WRIC/1932/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 1932 of 2025, decided 11.4.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. Married couple's writ petition for mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life and for police protection refused: no serious threat perception, no peril to life or liberty, no evidence relatives would assault them; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 relied on; security not claimable as of right; no averment under Section 175(3) BNSS; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and, in light of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), no requirement to pass any order providing police protection. ¶9

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life (and consequential police protection).

¶8

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault.

¶10

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought; they have to learn to support each other and face the society.ratio¶11
If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right.ratio¶12
The petition contained no specific averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a married couple seeking a mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful marital life, effectively a plea for police protection. Held, dismissing the plea: on the pleadings there is no serious threat perception and no requirement to pass any protection order, in light of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), wherein the Apex Court held that courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes; there is no material that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, nor any iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault; in a deserving case the Court can provide security but cannot lend the support sought, and security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; further, the petition contained no specific averment of any case instituted under Section 175(3) BNSS. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56451

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1932 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja Kushwaha And Another Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Instructions supplied by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) , wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.

¶10

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.

¶11

In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought. They have to learn to support each other and face the society.

¶12

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.

¶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 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.

¶14

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 .

¶15

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Rakesh

¶16

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

Smt. Pooja Kushwaha and Another v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja Kushwaha and Another v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Bhumikaben Rabari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Vimal Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Renu Patel and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others