Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134164 Court No. - 77 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42239 of 2024 Petitioner :- Khushbu Bano And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has handed over a copy of the instructions and Sri Vishnu Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 has filed supplementary affidavit, the same are taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Shalu Singh, learned counsel for petitioner no. 1, Sri Vishnu Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner no. 2 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 3. The instant petition has been preferred at the behest of the petitioner no. 2 seeking police protection for married couple, who are leading their peaceful life as husband and wife after solemnization of marriage and the same fact has been submitted by Sri Vishnu Kant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner no. 2. In respect of petitioner no. 1 is concerned, Ms. Shalu Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner no. 1 has informed that although petitioner no. 1 was residing with petitioner no. 2 without solemnization of marriage but later on marriage was solemnized but certain dispute has been arose after getting marriage and at present, petitioner no. 2 is residing separately with petitioner no. 1. Certain more allegation has been put-forward at the behest of petitioner no. 1 by learned counsel appearing for petitioner no. 1 but those are not amenable within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the roaster defines only for entertaining the writ for seeking police protection to the couple. 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that petition is not maintainable, since the essential ingredients of couple is missing from the arguments as raised by learned counsel appearing for petitioner nos. 1 and 2 separately. 5. Arguments as raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel seems to be justified and once it is crystal clear as per the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 that both the petitioners are leading their separate life by way of residing separately, there is hardly any cause of action arises in favour of petitioner no. 2 for seeking protection in favour of the married couple. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 #Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad