Smt Swati and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Swati and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer (mandamus/non-interference and police protection) was refused and the petition disposed of with observations, noting that the petitioners' already-pending representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly would be acted upon if the concerned police finds a real threat perception.

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful live-in/marital life. +1 more

Court's answer

No case was made out for seeking indulgence of the Court over the prayer as made in the petition.

Ratio / Principle

On 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.

Key takeaways

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 that the private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.ratio¶9
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.ratio¶10
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but they cannot claim security as a matter of course or right.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

[2025:AHC:49977] Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 7.4.2025) disposed of WRIT - C No. - 4369 of 2025 (Smt Swati and another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others), wherein the petitioners, a couple in a peaceful live-in/marital relationship, sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their live-in/marital life. Perusing only the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and no material to conclude the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; not an iota of evidence indicated that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. Relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) - that courts are not meant to protect youths who simply flee to marry according to their own wishes - the Court held that security may be provided only in a deserving case and cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; the couple must learn to support each other and face society, with courts and police available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. Observing that a representation already stood before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, the Court left any response to the police should a real threat perception be found, further noting the absence of any averment regarding an FIR application or any case instituted under Section 175(3) of BNSS.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49977

Court No. - 74

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4369 of 2025

Petitioner :- Smt Swati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly

and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

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.

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 .

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

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