Disposed¶14

Monika and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025WRIC/3236/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT-C 3236 of 2025; Monika And Another v. State of U.P. And 3 Others; writ petition by married couple; mandamus non-interference in marital life; police protection refused; no serious threat perception; Lata Singh AIR 2006 SC 2522 relied on; security not claimable as a matter of course or right; Section 175(3) BNSS; disposed of 1.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:44670.

What did the court decide?

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

Monika and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44670

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3236 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Monika And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Thakur Prasad Dubey 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

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

¶13

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 :- 1.4.2025 Rakesh

¶16

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

Monika and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Upadhyay vs State of U.P.

Smt. Khushbu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Sudama vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Vinay Kumar Pandey vs State of Up and Another

Ashok Verma Ex-Secretary, Pnu Club and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another