Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2025WRIC/22742/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT - C No. 22742 of 2024, Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz And Another v. State Of UP And 3 Others, decided 6.5.2025: mandamus for non-interference with peaceful marital life / police protection refused for want of threat perception; security not claimable as of right; representation before SP/SSP Rampur noted; reference to Section 175(3) BNSS; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners, so there is no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them. ¶¶8

Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz and Another Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (and, implicitly, to afford them police protection).

¶¶7

Court's answer

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

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril; not even an iota of evidence shows the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a 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 rescue them, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.ratio¶¶11
The petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Rampur; if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life — disposed of. Held: (i) the pleadings disclose no serious threat perception, hence no order for police protection is required; (ii) there is no material to conclude the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, nor any iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault; (iii) while a deserving couple may be given security, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat — Courts and police remain available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them; (iv) a representation already stands moved before the SP/SSP, Rampur, and the police will act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found; (v) the petition contains no averment of any information for an FIR or of any proceeding under Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72942

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22742 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azhar Hussain,Mohd. Razif Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Even in the revised call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.

¶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/Senior Superintendent of Police, Rampur 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 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶16

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

Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz and Another v. State of Up 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