Disposed¶15

Smt. Shreya Kesarwani and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025WRIC/2966/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court 2025 WRIT-C 2966/2025 married couple writ petition police protection mandamus non-interference peaceful marital life no serious threat perception Lata Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2522 relied on security not a matter of course or right representation Superintendent of Police Chitrakoot FIR Section 175(3) BNSS petition disposed 4.4.2025 Saurabh Srivastava J.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore sees no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶8

Smt. Shreya Kesarwani 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 Court should grant a mandamus-type direction that the respondents not interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life (with implied request for police protection). +2 more

¶7

Ratio / Principle

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

¶8

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶9
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought; they have to learn to support each other and face society.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 2966 of 2025) by a married couple (Shreya Kesarwani and another) before the Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order dated 4.4.2025) seeking a mandamus-type direction that respondents not interfere with their peaceful marital life. Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and no evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. Relying on Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), the Court held courts are not meant to provide protection to couples who merely flee to marry; security may be given in deserving cases but is not claimable as a matter of course or right, recourse lying to Courts/police if misbehaviour occurs. The Court noted a pending representation before the SP, Chitrakoot and the absence of any averment regarding FIR or proceedings under Section 175(3) of BNSS, and disposed of the petition as no case was made out. No relief of police protection or non-interference direction was issued.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47943

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2966 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shreya Kesarwani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Basdeo Nishad,Rama Pati Nishad 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 Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will

¶13

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. Shreya Kesarwani and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shreya Kesarwani 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

Mohd Fuzail vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shaista Parveen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nargis and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Anjali Kumari and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others

Smt. Pooja Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Guddi and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others