Disposed¶15

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

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2025WRIC/6931/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition; peaceful marital life; mandamus; police protection; threat perception; life and liberty; representation before SP/SSP Hathras; Section 175(3) BNSS; disposed of without directions; Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 6931 of 2025, decided 15.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners, and therefore there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶9

Smt. Khushi 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 the respondents should be restrained through a mandamus direction from interfering with the peaceful marital life of the petitioners. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

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

¶9

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault.

¶10

Key takeaways

While the Court can provide security to a couple in a deserving case, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.ratio¶12
The petitioners' representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Hathras is noted; if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, it will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio¶13
The Court observed that the petition contains no specific averment that any case has been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of a writ petition by a couple (Smt. Khushi and another) seeking a mandamus that the respondents not interfere with their peaceful marital life. Finding no serious threat perception on the pleadings and no material showing the petitioners' life or liberty at peril, the Court declined to order police protection, holding that security may be given in a deserving case but cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without a serious threat. The Court noted the couple's pending representation before the SP/SSP, Hathras, and observed that the petition contained no averment of any case instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS. No relief was granted; the petition was disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81806

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6931 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Khushi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amarendra Mani,Mahendra Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶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, Hathras and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they 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 :- 15.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Khushi 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 Nitu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akanksha Minor and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shankar Lal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Muskan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Renu and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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