Disposed¶10

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

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2025WRIC/5904/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court writ petition (WRIT - C No. 5904 of 2025, decided 29.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:69337) by married couple seeking mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life and implied police protection; Court held no serious threat perception existed, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat, representation already pending before S.H.O. Nasirpur (District Firozabad), no Section 175(3) BNSS averment; petition disposed of without police protection. Keywords: police protection, threat perception, peaceful marital life, mandamus, Section 175(3) BNSS, disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the pleadings, this Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners. ¶4

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

No case was made out for seeking the Court's indulgence over the prayer made in the petition, and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

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

¶4

Key takeaways

There is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to the petitioners.ratio¶4
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¶5
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.), Writ - C No. 5904 of 2025, decided 29.04.2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:69337): Petitioners, a married couple, sought a mandamus directing the State of U.P. and five other respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception and no requirement of ordering police protection; there was not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court observed that while security can be provided in a deserving case, it cannot be lent as sought, and security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. Noting that the petitioners had already moved a representation before the S.H.O., PS- Nasirpur, District Firozabad, that the police will act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found, and that the petition contained no specific averment of any case instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS, the Court held no case was made out and disposed of the petition without granting police protection.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69337

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5904 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Seema And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Instructions preferred on behalf of State is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶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.

¶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.

¶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 without any serious threat.

¶13

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the S.H.O., PS- Nasirpur, District Firozabad 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 :- 29.4.2025 Shaswat

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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. Manu and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others