Sarika Rajawat and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2025WRIC/8072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court WRIT - C No. 8072 of 2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:58131; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; order date 18.4.2025; disposed. Mandamus sought against interference in peaceful marital life; police protection refused for want of serious threat perception; couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right; representation before SP Jalaun; no FIR averment; Section 175(3) BNSS; earlier protection discontinued, extension subject to fresh police assessment. Petitioners: Sarika Rajawat and another; respondents: State of U.P. and others.

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 providing them police protection. ¶¶8

Sarika Rajawat and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 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., extend police protection to them.

¶¶7

Court's answer

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 providing them police protection.

¶¶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 petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; the Courts and police authorities remain available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶¶11
Petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun; in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.obiter¶¶12
No specific application/information lodging any FIR against the private respondents is averred, and the petition contains no averment that any case has been instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS despite alleged police inaction; accordingly no case is made out for judicial indulgence over the prayer made.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, WRIT - C No. 8072 of 2025, Saurabh Srivastava, J., order dated 18.4.2025) by Sarika Rajawat and another, seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents not interfere in their peaceful marital life. Held: upon perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (their relatives) were likely to cause physical or mental assault; therefore no order for police protection was required. The Court observed that in a deserving case security can be provided, but a couple cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without any serious threat, the Courts and police remaining available against actual misbehaviour. It further noted the petitioners' existing representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun (the police to act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found) and the absence of any specific averment of an FIR lodged or of a case instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. The petition was disposed of, and the protection granted earlier to the petitioners was discontinued, any extension being subject to fresh assessment by the concerned police authority.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58131

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8072 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Sarika Rajawat And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Maurya,Vinay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar, 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, Jalaun and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they 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

However, it is made clear that the protection granted earlier to the petitioners is hereby discontinued and extension shall be subject to fresh assessment made by concerned police authority.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Saif

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarika Rajawat and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika Rajawat and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Km. Manju Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt. Laxmi Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sukhvir Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Aarti and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others