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

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2025WRIC/6578/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 6578 of 2025, decided 20.5.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. (neutral citation 2025:AHC:84976). Mandamus sought restraining respondents from interfering with petitioners' peaceful marital life and for police protection; refused for want of serious threat perception or evidence of peril to life and liberty; security not claimable as of right without serious threat; representation before Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar noted; observation re absence of averment under Section 175(3) BNSS; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

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

Smt. Sejal Tyagi and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction in the nature of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life (and, concomitantly, whether police protection ought to be provided).

¶¶7

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and no requirement to pass any order providing police protection.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

There was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, nor any evidence that the private respondents were likely to cause physical or mental assault.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶¶10
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; courts and police authorities exist to rescue persons who are misbehaved with or manhandled.ratio¶¶11
Since the petitioners had already moved a representation before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception they will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 6578 of 2025) by a married couple, Smt. Sejal Tyagi and another, against the State of U.P. and others seeking a mandamus that the respondents not interfere with their peaceful marital life. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J. (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, order dated 20.5.2025) found, on perusal of the pleadings, no serious threat perception and no material indicating that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, holding that while security may be provided to a couple in a deserving case, it cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat. The Court noted the representation already moved before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, leaving it to the concerned police to act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found, and observed the absence of any averment regarding Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of; no police protection ordered.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84976

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6578 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sejal Tyagi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Raj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Even in the revised call, none appears on behalf of the petitioners, however, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.

¶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 Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar 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 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sejal Tyagi and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 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

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

Divyanshcorpus vs State of U.P. and 3 Others