Disposed¶15

Smt. Kritika Sengar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2025WRIC/7842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Couple's writ petition seeking restraint against interference in their peaceful marital life disposed of by Allahabad High Court (decided 17.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:81706): no serious threat perception found; police protection not claimable as a matter of course or right; existing representation before the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya left to be acted upon by police in accordance with law; absence of any averment regarding Section 175(3) of BNSS noted. Keywords: police protection, threat perception, life and liberty, peaceful marital life, mandamus, Section 175(3) BNSS, Superintendent of Police Auraiya.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer made in the petition was not entertained and the petition stood disposed of. ¶15

Smt. Kritika Sengar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer made in the petition was not entertained and the petition stood disposed of.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners, as sought in the writ petition. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

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

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court did not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and, therefore, saw no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them.

¶8

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason for the Court to conclude that the life and liberty of the petitioners were at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault to them.ratio¶9
Security cannot be claimed by petitioners as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; the Courts and police authorities remain available to come to their rescue if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶11
Since the petitioners had already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya, the concerned police will do the needful in accordance with law in case it finds a real threat perception.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT - C No. 7842 of 2025, decided 17.4.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:81706): Petitioners (a couple) sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception and no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, there being not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. It held that while in a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, it cannot lend them the support they seek, and security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat, the Courts and police authorities remaining available for rescue against actual misbehaviour or manhandling. Noting the petitioners' existing representation before the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya, the Court left it to the concerned police to act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found, and observed that the petition contained no specific averment of any case instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. Finding no case made out for its indulgence over the prayer, the Court disposed of the petition without ordering police protection.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81706

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7842 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Kritika Sengar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Yadav 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, Auraiya 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

¶14

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 :- 17.4.2025 Rakesh

¶17

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

Smt. Kritika Sengar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kritika Sengar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases