HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 28964 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has handed over a copy of the instructions, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner no.1 is having live-in- relationship with petitioner no. 2 against the wishes of 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. 4. Through instructions, so received by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, it has been transpired that both the petitioners are leading their life without solemnization of any marriage and without registering the same, and the same has been reported by concerned authorities that both the petitioner are live-in-relationship. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further submitted 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Maurya, Ram Soorat Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mansi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 5. 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. 6. In view thereof, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2025 #Vik/- WRIC No. 28964 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad