Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79109 Court No. - 74 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36707 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pinki And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ashraf Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Even in the revised call, none appears on behalf of the petitioners, however, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents is present. 2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner no.1 is having live-in- relationship with petitioner no. 2 against the wishes of her father/respondent no.4 as well, therefore, apprehend threat to their lives by him. In the given background, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for seeking direction to the police/respondents to take appropriate measures to protect their lives. 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the Division Bench of this Court in Asha Devi & Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (Writ C-18743 of 2020) held and reiterated the settled law by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments about issuing a mandamus under Article 226, the Court must determine that the aggrieved person has a legal right that has been infringed. A mandamus is a command directing a person, corporation, inferior Court, or government to perform a specified public duty. It is issued against public authorities, administrative bodies, or anyone with a statutory or common law duty. The petitioners must prove a legal right to the performance of this duty at the time of the petition. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 is having live-in-relation with petitioner no.2 and as such no writ under Article 226 is issued in their favour. 5. In view thereof, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 #Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad