Refusing to grant protection to a Meerut-based couple who had entered into a love marriage, the Allahabad High Court has observed that it is not the mandatory or routine duty of courts to provide police protection to every young couple that leaves home and marries of its own free will.
The Court held that where there is no credible material indicating a real threat to life and personal liberty, security cannot be claimed “as a matter of course or right.”
It further remarked that, although security may be extended in deserving cases, such couples “have to learn to support each other and face the society.”
The aforesaid observations were made by Justice Prakash Padia while disposing of a writ petition filed by Mahavish and another.
The petitioners had sought directions restraining private respondents from interfering in their peaceful marital life and prayed for police protection.
Upon examining the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception warranting police protection to the couples.
Referring to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr, AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Court reiterated that “the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.”
The Court further observed that there was “no material or reason” to conclude that the petitioners’ life and liberty were in peril.
It noted that there was “not even an iota of evidence” to suggest that the private respondents or relatives of either petitioner were likely to subject them to physical or mental harassment.
At the same time, the Court clarified that in appropriate cases, protection may be granted, but the judiciary cannot provide the kind of support sought by the petitioners.
“They have to learn to support each other and face the society,” the Court remarked. It added that if anyone misbehaves with or assaults them, the courts and police authorities would come to their rescue, but security cannot be demanded as a matter of right.
The High Court also noted that although the petitioners had submitted a representation before the police authorities, the petition contained no specific averment showing that any information had been lodged seeking registration of an FIR against any unlawful act allegedly committed by the private respondents and that the police had failed to act upon it.
The Court further found no indication that any proceedings had been initiated under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Accordingly, the Court found that no case for interference was made out and thus disposed of the instant writ petition.
Case: Mahavish and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 22357 of 2026
Date of Order: 10.06.2026
Status: Disposed of
