Smt. Priyanka and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025WRIC/3302/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:63222; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 74; WRIT - C No. 3302 of 2025; decided 24.4.2025 by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.; counsel Akhil Kumar Shukla for petitioners, C.S.C. for State of U.P. and others. Keywords: mandamus; peaceful marital life; police protection; serious threat perception; life and liberty; private respondents/relatives; representation before Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur; FIR; Section 175(3) BNSS; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None; no case was made out for the Court's indulgence over the prayer, and the writ petition seeking non-interference in the petitioners' marital life was disposed of. ¶¶15

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; no case was made out for the Court's indulgence over the prayer, and the writ petition seeking non-interference in the petitioners' marital life was disposed of.

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life. +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

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

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners; therefore no order providing police protection is required.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but it cannot lend the support the petitioners have sought in this petition.ratio¶¶11
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; courts and police authorities are there to come to the rescue if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶¶12
The petitioners had already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur; in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Smt. Priyanka and another seeking a mandamus directing the respondents (including private respondents, who are relatives of the petitioners) not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. Held: on the pleadings there was no serious threat perception and hence no occasion to pass any order for police protection; there was no material to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, nor any iota of evidence that the private respondents were likely to cause physical or mental assault. In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without a serious threat; courts and police authorities remain available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. The Court noted the petitioners' pending representation before the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, observing that if a real threat perception is found the police will act in accordance with law; the petition contained no averment of any proceeding under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63222

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3302 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Priyanka And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Amendment application preferred on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.

¶12

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.

¶13

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they 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 :- 24.4.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

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

Smt. Priyanka and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priyanka and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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