Smt. Manu and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2025WRIC/5900/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition; mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life; no serious threat perception found; life and liberty not at peril; security not claimable as a matter of course or right; representation before SP/SSP Kannauj; no averment under Section 175(3) BNSS; writ petition disposed of; Allahabad High Court; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; WRIT - C No. 5900 of 2025; 2025:AHC:85010; order dated 20.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for a mandamus against interference in the petitioners' marital life and for police protection was not entertained and the petition was disposed of. ¶¶15

Smt. Manu 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 for a mandamus against interference in the petitioners' marital life and for police protection was not entertained and the petition was 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 marital life (with associated prayer for police protection). +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

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

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings, the 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.

¶¶8

Key takeaways

There is no material or reason 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
If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.ratio¶¶11
The petitioners have already moved a representation before the SP/SSP, Kannauj; in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 5900 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.; order dated 20.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:85010): Petitioners Smt. Manu and another sought a direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents not interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception on perusal of the pleadings and no material or reason 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 either of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. It observed that in a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple but cannot lend the support sought, and that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. The Court noted the petitioners' pending representation before the SP/SSP, Kannauj, to be acted upon if a real threat perception is found, and the absence of any specific averment of a case instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS. Finding no case made out, the petition was disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85010

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5900 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Manu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Chief 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 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 Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Kannauj and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶13

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of

¶14

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 :- 20.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Manu and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manu 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

Chandani and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt. Riya Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nidhi Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Neha Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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