Shrishti Verma W/O Shree Mukesh ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4130 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 88/2022

Shrishti Verma W/o Shree Mukesh Gangwal D/o Bishan Lal
Verma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 435 Vivekanandan R.k. Puram
Thana Kota.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State    Of       Rajasthan,          Through             Home      Secretary,
       Department Of Home Secretariat Jaipur.
2.     Additional Directior General Of Anti Human Traffic Unit,
       Jaipur
3.     Deputy Commissioner Police, Jaipur South
4.     S.h.o. Police Station, Mahesh Nagar Jaipur South
5.     Mukesh Gangwal, S/o Shree Prabhati Lal Gangwal, Aged
       About 36 Years, R/o 38 Mohan Colony Ramnagar Vistar
       (Extension) New Sanganer Road Tehsil Sanganer Jaipur
       District Jaipur
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S Hasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Fahad Hasan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, AGA with Ms. Chandrajyoti Sharma, S.H.O., Mahila Thana, Kota (City)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment / Order

26/05/2022

1. Petitioner has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking

custody of the corpus who happens to be her son, aged two years

and eight months.

2. In reply to the habeas corpus petition, it is contended that

petitioner has already filed an application under the Domestic

(2 of 2) [HC-88/2022]

Violence Act seeking custody order under Section 21 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the application

was filed on 11.03.2022 and no order has been passed by the

Court till date.

4. We have considered the contentions.

5. Since petitioner has already approached the Court under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and has sought

custody of the child under Section 21 of the said Act, hence, we

are not inclined to entertain the present habeas corpus petition.

6. Accordingly, Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed.

7. However, taking note of the fact that the child is aged two

years and eight months and the Court below dealing with the

application is directed to dispose of the application at the earliest.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /53

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)