Disposed¶9

Smt. Saumya Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2025WRIC/4096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Writ - C No. 4096 of 2025 (Saurabh Srivastava, J., order dated 23.4.2025): petition seeking mandamus against interference in petitioners' peaceful marital life / police protection disposed of; no serious threat perception found; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat; earlier representations made to Commissioner of Police (Commissionerate Gangapar) and S.H.O., P.S. Nawabganj, Prayagraj; observation regarding Section 175(3) of BNSS.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer made in the petition was not granted and the petition was disposed of. ¶9

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer made in the petition was not granted and the petition was disposed of.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (i.e., grant the protection/support sought). +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners.

¶3

Key takeaways

Consequently, there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to the petitioners.ratio¶3
There is no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril.ratio¶4
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 to the petitioners.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT - C No. 4096 of 2025, order dated 23.4.2025: Writ petition by Smt. Saumya Maurya and another seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents not interfere in their peaceful marital life was disposed of without any order. On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception and no material to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, there being not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court held that in a deserving case it can provide security to a couple but cannot lend the support sought, and that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat; courts and police remain available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting prior representations to the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gangapar, and the S.H.O., Police Station-Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, the Court observed that if the concerned police finds a real threat perception he will do the needful in accordance with law. It further observed there was no specific averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61994

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4096 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Saumya Maurya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Maury Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Although, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents is present but none appeared on behalf of petitioners even in the revised call.

¶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 Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gangapar, District Prayagraj as well as S.H.O., Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Prayagraj 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 :- 23.4.2025 Anurag/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Saumya Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saumya Maurya 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikram and 23 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohammad Sartaj and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Govind vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rounak Ahirwar and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Nisha Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others