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

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2025WRIC/6227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by couple seeking mandamus that respondents not interfere in peaceful marital life and seeking police protection; Court found no serious threat perception, no peril to life and liberty, no evidence private respondents (relatives) likely to assault; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; representation pending before SP/SSP Budaun; observation on absence of FIR information and no case instituted under Section 175(3) of BNSS; petition disposed of (not dismissed/allowed). Court No. 74; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:88506; decided 23.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶¶8

Smt. Neeraj 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 a direction in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

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

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and 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 them.ratio¶¶9
In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶¶10
The Courts and police authorities are available to come to the petitioners' rescue if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT-C No. 6227 of 2025, order dated 23.5.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:88506). Petitioners (a couple) sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life, i.e., police protection. The Court, on perusal of the pleadings, found no serious threat perception and no requirement of any order for police protection; there was no material indicating the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and not an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court stated that in a deserving case it 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 serious threat, courts and police being available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Budaun, the Court said the police will do the needful in accordance with law if they find a real threat perception. It further observed that no specific information for lodging an FIR against the private respondents had been preferred, and no averment existed that any case was instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88506

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6227 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Neeraj And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Suresh Kumar Yadav 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, Budaun 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 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

¶14

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 :- 23.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neeraj 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Km. Naziya and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

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

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

Master Vivan ( Corpus )and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another