Dismissed¶11

Anita Devi and Another v. State of Up and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2025WRIC/20238/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anita Devi and another v. State of U.P. and 6 others, WRIT-C No. 20238 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Saurabh Srivastava, J., order dated 6.5.2025, neutral citation 2025:AHC:72954. Live-in-relationship couple apprehending threat to life sought an Article 226 direction/mandamus for police protection; Court held no writ under Article 226 issues in favour of petitioners in a live-in relation and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits. Petitioners' counsel: Daksha Yadav; respondents represented by C.S.C. Case surfaced via Standing Counsel: Asha Devi & Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (Writ C-18743 of 2020).

What did the court decide?

Since petitioner no.1 is having a live-in relationship with petitioner no.2, no writ under Article 226 is issued in their favour. ¶10

Anita Devi and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72954

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20238 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anita Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Daksha Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel for the State has handed over a copy of the instructions, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and perused the material on record.

¶8

The petitioners' case is that the petitioner no.1 is having live-in-relationship with petitioner no. 2 against the wishes of respondent nos.4 to 7 as well, therefore, apprehend threat to their lives by him. In the given background, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for seeking direction to the police/respondents to take appropriate measures to protect their lives.

¶9

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the Division Bench of this Court in Asha Devi & Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (Writ C-18743 of 2020) held and reiterated the settled law by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments about issuing a mandamus under Article 226, the Court must determine that the aggrieved person has a legal right that has been infringed. A mandamus is a command directing a person, corporation, inferior Court, or government to perform a specified public duty. It is issued against public authorities, administrative bodies, or anyone with a statutory or common law duty. The petitioners must prove a legal right to the performance of this duty at the time of the petition.

¶10

Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 is having live-in-relation with petitioner no.2 and as such no writ under Article 226 is issued in their favour.

¶11

In view thereof, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶13

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

Anita Devi and Another v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Devi and Another v. State of Up and 6 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

Nemchand and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaleem Akhtar vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kishanpal vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rustam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another