Disposed¶15

Smt. Rani Parvin and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2025WRIC/20571/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 77, Writ - C No. 20571 of 2025, Smt. Rani Parvin And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, decided 24.7.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.; neutral citation 2025:AHC:122408. Petition for mandamus/police protection for peaceful marital life disposed of for absence of serious threat perception. Keywords: police protection, peaceful marital life, mandamus, threat perception, Superintendent of Police Sonbhadra, FIR, Section 175(3) BNSS, disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the 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. ¶8

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (i.e., police protection/security for the couple) should be granted.

¶7

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason for the Court 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 of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.

¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶10
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, 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.ratio¶11
The petitioners had already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra, and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 20571 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) by a couple seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus that respondents not interfere in their peaceful marital life, i.e., police protection, was disposed of. On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court observed that while security can be provided in a deserving case, it cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat, and that Courts and police authorities are available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them. The representation already moved before the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra was noted, with the observation that the police will act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found. The petition contained no averment that any case had been instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. No case was made out and the petition was disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122408

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20571 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Rani Parvin And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Singh,Ajeet Dixit 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 Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra 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 information preferred before the concerned police authorities for

¶14

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. Rani Parvin and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rani Parvin 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