Read Time: 05 minutes
Court noted that there was no material on record to show that there was any serious threat perception to the petitioners
The Allahabad High Court recently declined to grant police protection to a runaway couple seeking court's intervention against alleged threats from their families.
Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) where it was held that courts "are not meant to provide protection to such youths" who simply flee to marry according to their own wishes.
The petitioners — a woman and her partner — had approached the high court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities and their respective families not to interfere with their peaceful marital life.
However, the bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava, while disposing of the plea, held that there was no material on record to show that their life and liberty were at risk. "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," court observed.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), the judge observed that while courts are there to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens, they are not to become shelters for couples who choose to go against societal norms without facing real threats.
“In a deserving case, the court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought. They have to learn to support each other and face the society,” the judge remarked, reiterating that protection cannot be claimed as a matter of right in simple runaway cases.
The high court further noted that there was "not even an iota of evidence" suggesting that either petitioner faced threats of physical or mental assault from their relatives. In fact, the petition lacked any details of specific incidents or complaints made to police authorities regarding alleged harassment or fear of violence.
While acknowledging that the couple had submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, the court left it to the discretion of the concerned authority to act if any genuine threat to the couple’s safety arises in the future.
The order also pointed out the absence of any specific application or FIR stating any illegal conduct carried out by their respective families.
In conclusion, the court observed that no case was made out for seeking its indulgence over the prayer as made in the petition. Accordingly, it disposed of the plea.
Case Title: Smt. Shreya Kesarwani And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Please Login or Register
