Disposed¶15

Smt Saloni and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2025WRIC/529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Live-in/marital relationship police protection writ (WRIT - C No. 529 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:48178, Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava, J., decided 3.4.2025). Mandamus sought against State of U.P. and others; dismissed/disposed for want of threat perception; Lata Singh (AIR 2006 SC 2522) applied; security not a matter of right; representation before SSP Bulandshahar; Section 175(3) BNSS averment absent.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners, and therefore no order for police protection was required, in light of the Apex Court judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (courts are not meant to protect youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes). ¶8

Smt Saloni and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful live-in/marital life (i.e., police protection).

¶7

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

There was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault.

¶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.ratio¶10
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, the Courts and police authorities are there to rescue them, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right.ratio¶11
Since the petitioners had already moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception he will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; WRIT - C No. 529 of 2025; order dated 3.4.2025): Petitioners sought a mandamus restraining respondents from interfering with their peaceful live-in/marital life, i.e., police protection. The Court found no serious threat perception on the pleadings and no material showing peril to the petitioners' life or liberty, nor any likelihood of assault by the private respondent relatives. Relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), it held that courts are not meant to protect youths who have simply fled to marry of their own wish, and that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right, though police and courts remain available upon actual misbehaviour. Noting the petitioners' pending representation before the SSP, Bulandshahar, the Court left it to the concerned police to act if a real threat perception is found, and observed the absence of any specific averment regarding Section 175(3) BNSS. Petition disposed of; no protection ordered.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48178

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 529 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Saloni And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay 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 who preferred instructions which are taken on record.

¶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

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a

¶13

representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar 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 :- 3.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶17

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

Smt Saloni and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saloni and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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 Dimpal Varshney and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nasrin Bano and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nazmeen Iqbal and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramker Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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