Last update:
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in can Singh v. State of Up (Air 2006 SC 2522), where it was a hero that the courts “are not destined to provide protection to these young people” who simply flee to marry their own wishes.
The petitioners, a woman and her partner, had approached the Superior Court that travels an order of Mandamus that directed the state authorities and their respective families that do not interfere with their peaceful marriage life.
The Superior Court of Allahabad recently refused to grant police protection to a fugitive couple who seeks the intervention of the court against alleged threats of their families.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in can Singh v. State of Up (Air 2006 SC 2522), where it was a hero that the courts “are not destined to provide protection to these young people” who simply flee to marry their own wishes.
The petitioners, a woman and her partner, had approached the Superior Court that travels an order of Mandamus that directed the state authorities and their respective families that do not interfere with their peaceful marriage life.
However, the bank of Judge Saurabh Srivastava, by getting rid of the plea, a hero that there was no registered material to demonstrate that his life and freedom were at risk. “This court finds no perception of serious threat to petitioners and, therefore, there is no requirement to approve any order to provide them with police protection,” the Court observed.
Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in can Singh v. UP State (Air 2006 SC 2522), the judge observed that, although the courts must defend the rule of law and protect citizens, they should not become shelters for couples who give gifts.
“In a deserving case, the court can provide security to the couple, but cannot provide them with the support they were looking for. They have to learn to support each other and face society,” said the judge, reiterating that protection of the law.
The Superior Court also pointed out that “not even an apex of evidence” suggested that any of the petitioners faced threats of physical or mental aggression of their relatives. In fact, the petition lacked incident details or specific complaints made to the police authorities regarding the alleged harassment or fear of violence.
By recognizing that the couple had presented a representation to the police superinte, Chitraooot, the court left him at the discretion of the worried authority to act if any genuine threat to the security of the couple arises in the future.
The Order also pointed out the absence of any specific application or FIR Bass that indicates any illegal behavior carried out by their respective families.
In conclusion, the court observed that no case was presented to seek its indulgence on prayer as is done in the request. Consequently, he eliminated the plea.