Disposed¶15

Smt. Neesu and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2025WRIC/7965/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 7965 of 2025, decided 17.4.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. Couple's petition for direction not to interfere with peaceful marital life / police protection disposed of: no serious threat perception found; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat; representation to SSP Muzaffarnagar noted; no FIR application made; no averment of case instituted under Section 175(3) BNSS. Neutral citation 2025:AHC:77573.

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 to them. ¶8

Smt. Neesu 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 petitioners are entitled to a direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents not interfere with their peaceful marital life, i.e., police protection. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

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

¶10

Ratio / Principle

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 to them.

¶8

Key takeaways

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 petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault.ratio¶9
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; Courts and police authorities remain available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶11
The petitioners had already moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar; if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, it will do the needful in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (Civil) petition by Smt. Neesu and another before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 17.4.2025) seeking a mandamus that the respondents not interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception upon perusal of the pleadings, no material indicating the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. It observed that while security may be provided in a deserving case, it cannot be lent as the support sought, nor claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat. The Court noted the petitioners' existing representation before the SSP, Muzaffarnagar (police to act if a real threat is found), the absence of any FIR-application/information to police authorities, and the absence of any averment of a case instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. Finding no case made out, the petition was disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77573

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7965 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Neesu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar 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 lodging any FIR against any illegal conduct carried out by the private respondents, if that be so, and no heed has ever been paid

¶14

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. Neesu and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neesu 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

Smt Priya Sonkar and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Suman Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Khushbu Bharti and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajan vs State of U.P. and Another

Saraswati and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others