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

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2025WRIC/6470/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition, Allahabad High Court; mandamus for non-interference in peaceful marital life refused; no serious threat perception found; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; representation before SP/SSP Budaun; no Section 175(3) BNSS application averred; petition disposed of; Judge: Saurabh Srivastava; WRIT - C No. - 6470 of 2025; September 11, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court did not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶¶11

Smt. Sumitra and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

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

¶¶10

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.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court did not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

There is not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners; no material or reason exists to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril.ratio¶¶12
Security can be provided by the Court only in a deserving case; the Court cannot lend the couple the support they have sought.ratio¶¶13
A couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; courts and police authorities are available to come to their rescue if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT - C No. - 6470 of 2025, decided September 11, 2025 — Writ petition by Smt. Sumitra and another seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception and no material showing the couple's life and liberty at peril, observing not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents were likely to cause physical or mental assault. It held that security can be provided only in a deserving case and cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Budaun (to be acted upon per law if a real threat is found) and the absence of any averment regarding a Section 175(3) BNSS application for an FIR, the Court disposed of the petition without ordering any protection.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 6470 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Sumitra And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Roopesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

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

¶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

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

WRIC No. 6470 of 2025

¶17

¶18

the needful in accordance with law.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶22

September 11, 2025 #Vik/-

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sumitra and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

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

Smt. Ranu Nishad and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sejal Tyagi and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Maina and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others