Disposed¶14

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

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025WRIC/3582/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police-protection writ petition by married couple; mandamus sought against interference in peaceful marital life; no serious threat perception found; not an iota of evidence of likely assault by relative respondents; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) relied on; security only in deserving cases and not claimable as a matter of course or right; representation before Commissioner of Police, Kasganj; Section 175(3) of BNSS referenced; Allahabad High Court; Justice Saurabh Srivastava; WRIT - C No. 3582 of 2025; 2025:AHC:40956; disposed of on 20.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of without any direction for police protection or non-interference, recourse being left to the pending representation before the Commissioner of Police, Kasganj. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was disposed of without any direction for police protection or non-interference, recourse being left to the pending representation before the Commissioner of Police, Kasganj.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus ensuring that the respondents do not interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (with attendant expectation of police protection). +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore sees no requirement to pass any order providing police protection to them.

¶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

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple but cannot lend them the support they have sought; the couple must learn to support each other and face the society.ratio¶10
Courts and police authorities remain available to come to the petitioners' rescue if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right.ratio¶11
Given the representation already before the Commissioner of Police, Kasganj, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception it will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 3582 of 2025, neutral citation 2025:AHC:40956) filed by Smt. Fareen and another seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life, in substance a request for police protection. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; order dated 20.3.2025) found no serious threat perception on the pleadings and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondent relatives were likely to cause physical or mental assault. Relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), the Court held that security may be extended only in a deserving case and cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; the couple must support each other and face society, with courts and police available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting the petitioners' earlier representation before the Commissioner of Police, Kasganj and the absence of any averment of an application or case pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS, the Court disposed of the petition without issuing any protective order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40956

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3582 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Fareen And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar 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 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, Kasganj and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶13

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.

¶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 :- 20.3.2025 Rakesh

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fareen 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

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

Smt Arti Devi @ Artee and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad Patel vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others