Dismissed¶16

Smt Neha and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2025WRIC/6470/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Writ - C No. - 6470 of 2024 (Smt Neha And Another v. State Of Up And 3 Others), decided 12 September 2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.; writ petition seeking mandamus against interference in petitioners' peaceful marital life dismissed as infructuous for want of surviving cause of action; earlier protection discontinued, extension subject to fresh assessment by concerned police authority. Keywords: mandamus, peaceful marital life, protection discontinued, infructuous petition, cause of action, Standing Counsel, Court No. 77.

What did the court decide?

No cause of action survives for pressing the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. ¶13

Smt Neha and Another Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 6470 of 2024

¶4

Smt Neha And Another

¶5

.....Petitioner(s)

¶6

	Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ankit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

Although, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents is present but none appeared on behalf of petitioners even in the revised call.

¶10

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.

¶11

At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel sought the attention of the court over the documents appended for substantiating the prayer as made in the petition but at the same time, it is also intimated by learned Standing Counsel that the instant petition has been preferred in the year 2024 and at present, no cause of action is surviving and as such, the prayer made in the petition has become redundant.

¶12

Considering the arguments raised by learned Standing Counsel, it is crystal clear that the instant matter has been preferred at the behest of petitioners for prayer mentioned herein but the same was perpetuating against the adverse situation available before petitioners in the year and time when the instant petition has been filed.

¶13

At present, no cause of action survives for pressing the instant petition preferred at the behest of the petitioners and as such, the petition is

¶14

WRIC No. 6470 of 2024

¶15

¶16

dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

However, it is made clear that the protection granted earlier to the petitioners is hereby discontinued and extension shall be subject to fresh assessment made by concerned police authority.

¶18

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶19

September 12, 2025 #Vik/-

¶20

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

Smt Neha and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neha and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases