Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58053 Court No. - 74 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 812 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajiya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Pramit Kumar Pal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By way of the present writ petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful live-in life of petitioners, has been sought. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that both petitioners are major and are living together in relationship. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that petitioner no.1 is Muslim and petitioner no.2 is Hindu and for that they are being threatened and harassed by respondent no.4 who is mother of petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that in pursuance of the hindrances being created by respondent no.4 along with her other family members, petitioner no.1 moved a representation before Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar but no heed has been paid, hence this petition. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others [2006 (5) Supreme 266], Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi [2011 (3) Supreme 729], Devu G. Nair Vs. State of Kerla [2024 (3) Supreme 359] and Gian Devi Vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi [1976 (3) SCC 234]. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for petitioners by way of submitting that from the application which has been preferred by petitioner no.1 before Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar, there is no illegal action has ever been carried out by respondent no.4 to create hindrance in peaceful live-in life of petitioners. 6. 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. 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. 7. The judgements relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners, have no bearing on the facts and grounds involved in the instant petition since judgements rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass (supra) is outcome of dismissal of a criminal appeal preferred against the conviction determined by learned trial court concerned and the same was upheld by High Court, in the case of Devu G. Nair (supra), the said matter relates to habeas corpus preferred at the behest of wishes of a person who is contrary to the concept of family and the matter is related to LGBTQ+ persons and on account of violation and lack of safety. The extension of protection granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, is based upon the situation examined by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Devu G. Nair (supra) and the situation in the matter, is entirely different from the said matter. In sofar as the case of Gian Devi (supra) is concerned, Hon'ble the Apex Court has considered the illegal detention of petitioner who preferred petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India and the illegal detention of petitioner at Nari Niketan has been quashed by way of observing that the court or relatives of petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of petitioner in such a matter. In the case of Lata Singh (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court discussed the legality of trial conducted by learned trial court concerned and the same was quashed with the observation in shape of direction to the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings. In the instant matter, it is crystal clearly proves that the substance involved in the judgements cited by learned counsel for petitioners, is entirely different and the same are no applicable for any purpose in the instant matter. 8. In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought. If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue. 9. Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law. 10. It is also observed that no specific application in shape of information preferred before the concerned police authorities for 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. 11. 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 dismissed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad