Ruchi Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025WRIC/3862/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Ruchi Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents not interfere in their peaceful marital life, and to police protection.

¶¶7

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no order for providing 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 of the petitioners) 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.ratio¶¶10
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; Courts and police authorities remain available to come to the rescue of the couple if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶¶11
The petitioners' representation is already before the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur; if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 3862 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Saurabh Srivastava, J., order dated 28.4.2025) by Ruchi Verma and another seeking a mandamus that the respondents not interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception on the pleadings, no indication that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. It held that while security can be given to a couple in a deserving case, it cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat, and that Courts and police authorities are available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, and the absence of any averment regarding institution of a case under Section 175(3) of BNSS, the petition was disposed of with no relief granted.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67644

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3862 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ruchi Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Kori 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.

¶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 Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they 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

¶14

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 :- 28.4.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

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

Ruchi Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruchi Verma 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

Sanjana Parmar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laxmi Balmiki and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bitan Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bidharam Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Pooja and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalita Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others