Disposed¶22

Malti and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025WRIC/20052/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition; peaceful marital life; mandamus; no serious threat perception; security not a matter of right; Section 175(3) BNSS; representation before Bareilly police; Allahabad High Court; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶13

Malti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The petition contains no specific averment of any application/information for lodging an FIR against the private respondents, nor that any case has been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them.

¶13

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of Writ - C No. 20052 of 2025 filed by Malti and another against the State of U.P. and others, seeking mandamus that the respondents not interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception and no iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault, holding that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat, though in a deserving case security may be provided. Noting the petitioners' earlier representation before the Bareilly police and the absence of any averment regarding proceedings under Section 175(3) of BNSS, the Court observed that the police will act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found, and disposed of the petition without granting the prayed-for protection order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 20052 of 2025

Malti And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhinav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 77

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶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 concerned police authorities, Bareilly and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the

¶18

WRIC No. 20052 of 2025

¶19

¶20

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

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

September 11, 2025 #Vik/-

¶25

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

Malti and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malti and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 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