Dismissed¶¶12

Anam Khanam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2025WRIC/309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Live-in relationship; mandamus; police protection refused; no serious threat perception; private respondents were relatives; representation before Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad; Section 175(3) BNSS; WRIT - C No. 309 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; dismissed on 5.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

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

Anam Khanam and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful live-in life. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple but cannot lend them the support they have sought; if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and held there was no requirement to pass any order for providing police protection to them.

¶¶8

Key takeaways

Since the petitioners had already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, the concerned police will do the needful in accordance with law if it finds a real threat perception.obiter¶¶10
There was no specific averment in the petition that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS despite alleged illegal conduct by the private respondents and alleged inaction by police.obiter¶¶11
No case was made out for seeking the Court's indulgence on the prayer made in the petition, and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) dismissed a writ petition by a live-in couple seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful live-in life. Held: on the pleadings there was no serious threat perception and no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; there was not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault, so no order for police protection was required. The Court observed that in a deserving case it can provide security to a couple but cannot lend them the support they seek — recourse against misbehaviour or manhandling lies with the Courts and police authorities. The petitioners' representation already lay before the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, who would do the needful in accordance with law upon finding a real threat perception. The Court further noted the absence of any specific averment that a case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS. No case having been made out, the writ petition was dismissed (order dated 5.4.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49009

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 309 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Anam Khanam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Dwivedi,Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

By way of the present writ petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful live-in 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. 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.

¶9

In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought. If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue.

¶10

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 5.4.2025

¶14

Rakesh

¶15

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

Anam Khanam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anam Khanam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Vikash Gangawar vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Singh vs State of Up

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

Poonam Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Kashish Saini and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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