Disposed¶16

Smt Karuna and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2025WRIC/6680/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition disposed; no serious threat perception found; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life refused; representation pending before SP/SSP Shamli; no averment of FIR under S. 175(3) BNSS; Allahabad High Court, 15.5.2025, Saurabh Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

None - no order of police protection or mandamus was issued; the petition was merely disposed of. ¶16

Smt Karuna and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - no order of police protection or mandamus was issued; the petition was merely disposed of.

¶16

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, i.e. provide police protection to the petitioners.

¶8

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners, so there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril; not even an iota of evidence shows the private respondents are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.

¶10

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶11
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 without any serious threat.ratio¶12
The petitioners' representation before the SP/SSP, Shamli stands; in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; WRIT - C No. 6680 of 2025, decided 15.5.2025) disposed of a writ petition by Smt Karuna and another seeking mandamus that respondents be restrained from interfering in their peaceful marital life. Perusing the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and not an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault, and declined police protection. It observed that in a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but the couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. The Court noted the petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Shamli (police to act per law if a real threat emerges) and the absence of any averment regarding lodging of an FIR or recourse to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82183

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6680 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Karuna And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shravana Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel for the State has handed over a copy of the instructions, the same is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Shamli and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in

¶14

accordance with law.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶18

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

Smt Karuna and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Karuna and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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