Disposed¶15

Smt Ishika Khanna and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2025WRIC/6659/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection to married couple denied; writ (WRIT-C No. 6659 of 2025, Allahabad HC, Saurabh Srivastava, J., dt. 15.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:81925) seeking mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life disposed of. Key points: no serious threat perception; no iota of evidence of likely assault by private respondents (relatives); security not claimable as matter of course or right without serious threat; courts/police to rescue if misbehaved; representation pending before SP/SSP Bareilly; no averment of complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS.

What did the court decide?

None; no direction issued to the respondents and the prayer in the petition was declined. ¶15

Smt Ishika Khanna and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; no direction issued to the respondents and the prayer in the petition was declined.

¶15

Issue for consideration

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

¶7

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners, so no order for police protection is required.

¶8

Key takeaways

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril; not even an iota of evidence shows that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault.ratio¶9
While security may be provided in a deserving case, a couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; courts and police authorities are available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶11
Since the petitioners' representation already lies before the SP/SSP, Bareilly, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception they will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:81925), by order dated 15.5.2025 in WRIT - C No. 6659 of 2025 (Smt Ishika Khanna & Anr. v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.), disposed of a petition by a couple seeking a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception and 'not even an iota of evidence' that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault, holding that security may be provided in a deserving case but cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat, courts and police authorities being available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Bareilly, and the absence of any averment of action under Section 175(3) of BNSS, the Court left it to the police to do the needful in accordance with law upon finding a real threat, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81925

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6659 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Ishika Khanna And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surbhi Bhardwaj,Thakur Prasad Dubey 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.

¶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, Bareilly 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

¶14

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 :- 15.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

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

Smt Ishika Khanna and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ishika Khanna and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Shivani and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Mohd Usman and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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