Disposed¶15

Smt. Anchal Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2025WRIC/7579/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-C 7579 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, decided 22.4.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:60663). Couple sought mandamus/non-interference in peaceful marital life and police protection; Court found no serious threat perception, no peril to life and liberty, no evidence of likely assault by private respondents; security only in deserving cases, not claimable as of right without serious threat; representation pending before SP Sonbhadra; no averment of Section 175(3) BNSS proceedings; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the 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. ¶8

Smt. Anchal Kumari 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 Court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (i.e., grant protection/police protection to the couple).

¶7

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril; there is 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.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 without any serious threat.ratio¶11
The petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra; in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Writ-C No. 7579 of 2025; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:60663; Order Date 22.4.2025; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Court No. 74). Petitioners (a couple) sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life, i.e., police protection. Held: upon perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and no requirement of any order providing police protection; there was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, nor even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple but cannot lend them the support sought; Courts and police authorities remain available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat. The Court noted the petitioners' existing representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra, on which the concerned police were to act if a real threat perception was found, and observed that the petition contained no averment of any case instituted under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of; no protection ordered.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60663

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7579 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Anchal Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Pandey 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.

¶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.

¶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 without any serious threat.

¶12

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

¶13

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of information preferred before the concerned police authorities for

¶14

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 :- 22.4.2025 Gurpreet Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Anchal Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anchal Kumari 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

Shiva Alias Bhoora vs State of U.P.

Aslam vs State of U.P.

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

Vivek Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neelam Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others