Disposed¶9

Smt. Sapna and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2025WRIC/20549/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-C No. 20549 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:122385), Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava, J., order dated 24.7.2025. Married-couple writ petition (Smt. Sapna v. State of U.P.) praying for mandamus/non-interference in peaceful marital life and implied police protection. Court found no serious threat perception, no peril to life and liberty, no evidence against private respondents; held security is not claimable as of right without serious threat though permissible in deserving cases; noted representation before SSP Bareilly and no Section 175(3) BNSS averment; petition disposed of, no protection directed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners, and hence there is no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them. ¶3

Smt. Sapna and Another Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents (including private respondents, relatives of the petitioners) from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful marital life, effectively amounting to a claim for police protection.

¶2

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners, and hence there is no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, nor even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to them.

¶4

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but it cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶5
While the Courts and police authorities will come to a 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.ratio¶6
Since the petitioners have already moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 77; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:122385), Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J. WRIT-C No. 20549 of 2025, decided 24.7.2025. Petitioners Smt. Sapna and another sought a mandamus directing the respondents (State of U.P. and 9 others, including private respondents who are relatives of the petitioners) not to interfere with their peaceful marital life. Held: on the pleadings there is no serious threat perception and not even an iota of evidence that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril or that the private respondents are likely to cause physical or mental assault; a couple may be given security in a deserving case, but cannot lend them the support sought, and security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right absent a serious threat. The Court noted the petitioners' pending representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly (police to act per law if a real threat perception is found) and the absence of any averment regarding an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Writ petition disposed of; no police protection ordered.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122385

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20549 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sapna And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Singh,Raj Kumar Dubey,Subhash Chandra Dubey,Sudha Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sapna and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sapna and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 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