Smt. Ribka and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Ribka and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; no direction in the nature of mandamus or for police protection was issued, the Court finding no case made out for indulgence over the prayer made in the petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should grant a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life. +1 more

Court's answer

A couple may be provided security in a deserving case, but courts and police being available for rescue if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right in the absence of any serious threat.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, nor even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault.ratio¶¶9
Since the petitioners had already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, the concerned police will do the needful in accordance with law if they find a real threat perception.obiter¶¶12
Despite alleged illegal conduct by the private respondents, the petition contained no specific averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; order dated 19.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:84330) disposed of a writ petition by a married couple (WRIT-C No. 7191 of 2025) seeking a mandamus that the respondents not interfere with their peaceful marital life. Finding no serious threat perception upon perusal of the pleadings, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault, the Court held there was no requirement to pass any order for police protection, observing that while security can be provided to a couple in a deserving case, it cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. The petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Chitrakoot was left to be acted upon by the concerned police in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found; the Court further noted the absence of any averment that a complaint had been pursued under Section 175(3) of BNSS.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84330

Court No. - 74

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7191 of 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Ribka And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Even in the revised call, none appears on behalf of the petitioners, however, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents is present.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 #Vik/-

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