Disposed¶21

Smt. Shashi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025WRIC/20553/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 20553 of 2025, Smt. Shashi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.; mandamus for non-interference in peaceful marital life refused for want of serious threat perception; no order for police protection; security not claimable as a matter of course or right; representation already moved before SP/SSP Bareilly; police to act if real threat found; no averment of case under Section 175(3) of BNSS; petition disposed of by Saurabh Srivastava, J. on September 11, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court did not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶13

Smt. Shashi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court observed that no specific averment was available in the petition that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court did not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them.

¶13

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, nor even an iota of evidence that the private respondents were 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
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 without any serious threat.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 20553 of 2025) by Smt. Shashi and another against the State of U.P. and 3 others seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents not interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life. Perusing the pleadings, the Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) found no serious threat perception and no requirement to pass any order providing police protection; there was not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court held that in a deserving case it can provide security to a couple but cannot lend the support sought, and that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat, the Courts and police authorities being available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting the petitioners' earlier representation before the SP/SSP, Bareilly, the Court observed that if the concerned police finds a real threat perception they will do the needful in accordance with law, and further observed the absence of any averment that a case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS. Holding that no case was made out for the Court's indulgence over the prayer, the petition was disposed of on September 11, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 20553 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Shashi And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sudarshan Singh .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 77

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶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

WRIC No. 20553 of 2025

¶18

¶19

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/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.

¶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 11, 2025 #Vik/-

¶24

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

Smt. Shashi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashi and Another v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases