Disposed

Smt. Archana Trivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025WRIC/3427/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus restraining respondents from interfering in the petitioners' peaceful live-in/marital life. Court found no serious threat perception and no evidence of danger to life or liberty, observing protection cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Archana Trivedi and Another vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48173

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3427 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Archana Trivedi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shankar Yadav 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 live-in/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 Commissioner of Police,

¶13

Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar as well as concerned SHO and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he 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 :- 3.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Archana Trivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Archana Trivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Babu and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Goyal Alias Banti and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neha Rani and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Kapil and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vijay Goyal Alias Banti vs State of U.P. and Another