Disposed¶10

Smt. Manish Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2025WRIC/7418/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection / peaceful marital life writ (WRIT - C 7418 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava, J., 21.5.2025) dismissed-by-disposal: mandamus sought against interference by respondents refused for want of serious threat perception or evidence of peril to life and liberty; security only in deserving cases, not claimable as of right; representation pending before SP/SSP Azamgarh; no averment of Section 175(3) BNSS recourse; no relief granted, no quantum involved, no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

On the pleadings, this Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners; therefore there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them. ¶4

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (in effect, a prayer for police protection). +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

No case is made out for seeking indulgence of the Court over the prayer as made in the petition; accordingly the petition is disposed of without relief.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

On the pleadings, this Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners; therefore there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them.

¶4

Key takeaways

There is no material or reason for this Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril.ratio¶5
There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that the private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.ratio¶5
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:86106), WRIT - C No. 7418 of 2025, Saurabh Srivastava, J., order dated 21.5.2025: Writ petition by Smt. Manish Dubey and another sought a mandamus directing the respondents (State of U.P. and others) not to interfere in their peaceful marital life, i.e., police protection. On the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception and no material that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; not even an iota of evidence showed the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court observed that in a deserving case it can provide security to a couple but cannot lend the support sought, and that Courts and police authorities stand ready if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, yet security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the SP/SSP, Azamgarh (on which the police will act in accordance with law upon a real threat perception) and the absence of any averment regarding institution of a case under Section 175(3) BNSS despite non-response by police, the Court held no case was made out for its indulgence and disposed of the petition without granting any relief.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86106

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7418 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Manish Dubey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amaresh Yadava,Angad 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, Azamgarh 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 :- 21.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶18

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

Smt. Manish Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manish Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Seema Jaiswal and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Aradhya Singh Minor-Detenue and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 Others

Shashikant @ Shashikant Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandramani vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Varsha Mali and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nisha Gond and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others