Saloni Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2025WRIC/658/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Writ - C No. 658 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:47463), disposed of on 3.4.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. Couple sought mandamus against interference in peaceful live-in/marital life and police protection; no serious threat perception found; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) relied on; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; representation pending before SP Azamgarh; no FIR application or Section 175(3) BNSS case averred; petitioners Saloni Yadav and another; counsel Arun Kumar Singh; C.S.C. for State.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them, in light of the Apex Court judgment in Lata Singh. ¶¶8

Saloni Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 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 be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful live-in/marital life. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

The Court observed that no specific application in the shape of information had been preferred before the concerned police authorities for lodging any FIR against the private respondents, and the petition contained no specific averment that any case had been instituted under Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶¶8

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) were 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; they have to learn to support each other and face the society.obiter¶¶10
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but they cannot claim security as a matter of course or right.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 658 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:47463, Saurabh Srivastava, J., order dated 3.4.2025) by petitioners Saloni Yadav and another seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful live-in/marital life. Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and no material to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, there being not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. Relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) — wherein the Apex Court held that courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes — the Court observed that in a deserving case it can provide security to a couple but cannot lend the support sought, and that security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right. Noting the representation already before the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh (to act if a real threat perception is found) and the absence of any FIR application or averment of a case under Section 175(3) of BNSS, the Court held no case was made out and disposed of the petition.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47463

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 658 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Saloni Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents who filed instructions which are taken on record.

¶7

By way of the present writ petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful live-in/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 in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) , wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.

¶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. They have to learn to support each other and face the society.

¶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.

¶12

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a

¶13

representation before the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh 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 :- 3.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saloni Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saloni Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Kaleem Akhtar vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kishanpal vs State of U.P. and Another

Anita Devi and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others

Smt Rizbana @ Sehnaz and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others