The Allahabad High Court has ruled that couples who marry against the wishes of their families cannot claim police protection as a matter of right unless there is a genuine and serious threat to their safety.
Petition Filed By Newlyweds Dismissed
The verdict came while Justice Saurabh Srivastava was hearing a plea filed by Shreya Kesarwani and her husband. The couple sought police protection and requested that the court restrain certain individuals—presumably family members—from interfering in their married life.
After reviewing their petition, the court found no substantial evidence to suggest any real danger to the couple’s lives or liberty. Consequently, the court declined to grant protection, stating that such requests should be reserved for exceptional cases.
Protection Not A Routine Entitlement
The court acknowledged that in specific situations, it can extend security to couples. However, in the absence of any real threat, the court emphasized the importance of emotional resilience. It noted, “The court can provide security to a couple in a deserving case, but in the absence of any threat perception, such a couple must learn to support each other and face society.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s precedent in Lata Singh v. State of UP and Another, the bench reiterated that legal protection cannot be granted routinely to young individuals who elope or marry by choice. “There is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them,” the court observed.
No Evidence Of Harm Or Harassment
Justice Srivastava pointed out that there was no credible material on record indicating any risk of physical or mental harm to the couple. “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,” the court stated.
Moreover, the couple had not submitted any formal complaint or request for legal action, such as an FIR, against those they feared might interfere.
Police May Act If Threat Arises
The court did note that the petitioners had made a representation to the Superintendent of Police in Chitrakoot district. It added, “In case the concerned police find a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.”
In its decision dated April 4, the High Court made it clear that police protection cannot be demanded simply because a marriage was opposed by the family. The court concluded that such security is not a guaranteed right unless there is clear evidence of danger.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
