Disposed¶15

Smt Suman and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2025WRIC/4386/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Live-in/marital relationship; mandamus for non-interference; police protection denied; no serious threat perception on pleadings; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2522 relied upon; security only in deserving cases, not as of right; representation before SSP Aligarh and SHO; police to act if real threat found; no FIR application; Section 175(3) BNSS averment absent; WRIT - C No. 4386 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:49942; Allahabad High Court; judge Saurabh Srivastava; petitioners Smt Suman and another; respondents State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others; counsel Lakshmi Kant Singh, Santosh Kumar Pandey; C.S.C.; disposed of on 7.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

None granted; no direction for non-interference or police protection was issued and the petition was merely disposed of. ¶15

Smt Suman and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None granted; no direction for non-interference or police protection was issued and the petition was merely disposed of.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful live-in/marital life. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The Court further observed that no specific application in the shape of information had been preferred before the concerned police authorities for lodging any FIR against the private respondents' conduct, and the petition carries no averment of any case instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶14

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.

¶9

Key takeaways

There is no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, and 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¶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.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 7.4.2025) disposed of a writ petition (WRIT - C No. 4386 of 2025) by a cohabiting couple (Smt Suman and another) seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, including private relatives, not to interfere with their peaceful live-in/marital life. Perusing the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and 'not even an iota of evidence' that the relatives were likely to cause physical or mental assault. Relying on the Apex Court's judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) — that courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who have simply fled to marry of their own wish — the Court held that security may be extended only in a deserving case, cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right, and that Courts and police remain available if any person misbehaves with the couple. The petitioners' representations before the SSP, Aligarh and the concerned SHO stood; the police were to act if a real threat perception emerged. The Court also noted the absence of any FIR-related application or averment of recourse to Section 175(3) BNSS. Finding no case made out, the Court disposed of the petition without granting protection.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49942

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4386 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Suman And Another Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Singh,Santosh Kumar Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents who preferred instructions which are taken on record.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh as well as concerned SHO and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶14

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.

¶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 :- 7.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶17

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

Smt Suman and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Suman and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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

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

Smt. Chanda Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Himanshu Pradhan vs State of U.P.

Smt Swati and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Haripal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another