Disposed¶15

Smt Ruman Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2025WRIC/24137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC, Writ-C 24137/2024 (decided 04.04.2025, Saurabh Srivastava, J.) — mandamus for non-interference in marital life refused; police protection denied for want of threat perception; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 relied on; security not claimable as matter of course/right; representation pending before SSP Siddharth Nagar; S. 175(3) BNSS observation; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement to pass any order providing them police protection. ¶8

Smt Ruman Kumari 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 a mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but it cannot lend them the support they have sought; they must learn to support each other and face society.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement to pass any order providing them police protection.

¶8

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, nor even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault to them.ratio¶9
Courts and police authorities stand ready to rescue persons who are misbehaved with or manhandled, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right.ratio¶11
Since the petitioners had already represented to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception it will act in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 74), WRIT - C No. 24137 of 2024 — Smt Ruman Kumari and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others; decided 04.04.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:47941). A writ petition by a couple sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception in the pleadings and declined to order police protection, relying on the Apex Court decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), that courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who simply fled to marry of their own wish. Held: security can be given in a deserving case but couples must learn to support each other and face society; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right, though courts and police remain available if anyone misbehaves with or manhandles them. Noted the representation already made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, who would act per law if a real threat perception is found, and observed the absence of any averment regarding a case under S. 175(3) BNSS. Petition disposed of; no relief granted.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47941

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24137 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Ruman Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava 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 in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) , wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.

¶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. They have to learn to support each other and face the society.

¶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.

¶12

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar and in case the concerned police finds a real

¶13

threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶14

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.

¶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 :- 4.4.2025 Rakesh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Ruman Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ruman Kumari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Reeta Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Archana and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit vs State of Up and 4 Others

Chandani and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt. Riya Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nidhi Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others