Allahabad HC To Couples: The Allahabad High Court has noted that unless there is a genuine fear of harm to their lives and freedoms, couples who married against their parents’ wishes cannot legally claim police protection.

When a couple applied for protection, the court rendered its decision. It stated that if a couple is deserving, the court may grant them security; nonetheless, they must “learn to support each other and face society” without any threat.

Allahabad HC Statement on Protection:

During the hearing of a writ petition brought by Shreya Kesarwani and her husband, who wanted police protection and a directive to the private respondents not to meddle in their peaceful marriage, Justice Saurabh Srivastava made this observation. After reviewing their petition’s allegations, the court dismissed their writ petition, stating that the petitioners did not perceive any significant threat.

The court concluded that when it dismissed the writ petition, “There is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs State of UP and another, wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to protect such youths who have simply fled to marry according to their wishes.” The court further noted that there was no evidence or justification for concluding that the petitioners’ freedom and life were in danger.

“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,” the judge stated. The court further observed that the petitioners had not filed a formal complaint against the private respondents’ alleged criminal behavior by providing the relevant police authorities with a specific application in the form of information.

Also Read: UPI Down? Use UPI Lite to Pay Without Internet

“In case the concerned police find a real threat perception, they will do the needful by law,” the court stated, pointing out that the petitioners had previously made a communication to the superintendent of police (SP), Chitrakoot district. In light of this, the court emphasized that the police and courts can help anyone who has misbehaved or mistreated them. The court dismissed the plea in its April 4 ruling, concluding that the petitioners’ claim of security was not a right or a matter of course.

Share

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•