Dismissed¶¶12

Smt. Nazmeen Iqbal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2025WRIC/7516/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ dismissed; direction (mandamus) against interference in peaceful marital life; no serious threat perception on pleadings; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 relied on; representation pending before concerned police station; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 7516 of 2025; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; order dated 17.3.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:37589.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and, therefore, no requirement to pass any order providing police protection, acting in light of the Apex Court's judgment in Lata Singh (courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes). ¶¶8

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶12

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 (i.e., whether police protection ought to be ordered).

¶¶7

Court's answer

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

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

¶¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought; they have to learn to support each other and face the society.ratio¶¶10
If any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 74 (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT - C No. 7516 of 2025, decided 17.3.2025 — Petitioners sought a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life, i.e., police protection. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) on the pleadings there is no serious threat perception and no material to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, nor even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault; (ii) relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522, wherein the Apex Court held that courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes; (iii) in a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right — courts and police authorities remain available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them; (iv) the petitioners' representation already lodged before the concerned police station subsists, and the police shall do the needful in accordance with law if it finds a real threat perception.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37589

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7516 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Nazmeen Iqbal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Kushwaha 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 in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) , wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.

¶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. They have to learn to support each other and face the society.

¶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.

¶12

In view thereof, this petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶13

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the concerned police station and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Nazmeen Iqbal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nazmeen Iqbal 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Chandramani vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt Dimpal Varshney and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nasrin Bano and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Arpita Patel and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others