Disposed¶14

Smt Anjali Kumari and Another v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025WRIC/40364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Live-in relationship; marital life; police protection; mandamus; threat perception; life and liberty; relatives/private respondents; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2522; Section 175(3) BNSS; FIR; security as matter of right; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 40364 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:53633; Order Date 10.4.2025; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; petition disposed of, protection declined.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful live-in/marital life was not granted and the petition was disposed of. ¶14

Smt Anjali Kumari and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful live-in/marital life was not granted and the petition was disposed of.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful live-in/marital life, i.e., whether the petitioners are entitled to police protection.

¶7

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore 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, nor even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to them.

¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought; they have to learn to support each other and face society.obiter¶10
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right.obiter¶11
No specific application or information had been preferred before the concerned police authorities regarding any illegal conduct by the private respondents, and the petition contained no specific averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 40364 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Saurabh Srivastava, J., decided 10.4.2025) by a couple seeking a mandamus that the respondents not interfere in their peaceful live-in/marital life. Held: on the pleadings there was no serious threat perception to the petitioners and no iota of evidence that the private respondents (their relatives) were likely to cause physical or mental assault; hence no order for police protection was required. Relying on Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), the Court observed that in a deserving case security may be provided, but a couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right and must learn to support each other and face society. The petition also disclosed no specific application/information lodged with the police and no averment of any case instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of; no relief granted. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:53633)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53633

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40364 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Anjali Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Srivastava 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

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of information preferred before the concerned police authorities for

¶13

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 :- 10.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶16

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

Smt Anjali Kumari and Another v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anjali Kumari and Another v. State of Up and 4 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rabin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Asif and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Girdhari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Aanchal and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anya Pathak and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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