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

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2025WRIC/335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 335 of 2025; decided 5.4.2025; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; neutral citation 2025:AHC:48997. Petitioners (Smt. Shivani and another) sought mandamus restraining respondents from interfering with their peaceful marital life and police protection. Court found no serious threat perception, no peril to life and liberty, and no evidence private respondents (relatives) would assault them; security cannot be claimed as of right without serious threat. Representation pending before SSP, Pilibhit; police to act per law if real threat found. No averment of Section 175(3) BNSS recourse. Petition disposed of; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

On the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no order for police protection is required. ¶¶8

Smt. Shivani 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 writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life, i.e., whether police protection ought to be granted to the petitioners.

¶¶7

Court's answer

On the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no order for police protection is required.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

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

¶¶9

Key takeaways

Security can be provided in a deserving case, but a couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or as of right without any serious threat; Courts and police authorities exist for redress if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶¶11
Observation (expressed as 'needless to observe') that since a representation is already pending before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.obiter¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Single Bench, Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus that the respondents not interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life. Held: on the pleadings there was no serious threat perception and no material showing the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; there was not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. While security can be given in a deserving case, a couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without serious threat; Courts and police are available for rescue if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting the representation already pending before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, the Court observed that if a real threat perception is found the police will do the needful in accordance with law; the Court also noted the absence of any averment of recourse to Section 175(3) BNSS for lodging an FIR. No case was made out and the petition was disposed of (order dated 5.4.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48997

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 335 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shivani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,Jalaj Kumar Tripathi

¶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.

¶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.

¶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 without any serious threat.

¶12

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

¶13

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 . Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Rakesh

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shivani 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

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