[2025:RJ-JP:24210-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 220/2025 Rajan Harwani Son Of Shri Mohan Das Harwani, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 51, Kanwar Nagar, Tripoliya Bazar, District Jaipur (Raj.) - 302002 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking, Unit Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur South, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. S.h.o. Of Police Station Varun Path, Mansarover, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Madhu Khanchandani Wife Of Late Shri Vasudev Khanchandani, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 13/467, Kaveri Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarover, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Prakash Khanchandani Son Of Late Shri Vasudev Khanchandani, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 13/467, Kaveri Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prateek Kedawat For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini, Addl. Govt. Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 02/07/2025 1. This petition in the nature of habeas corpus is filed for release of the minor daughter of the petitioner who is allegedly abducted by maternal grand-mother and uncle (Mama). [2025:RJ-JP:24210-DB] (2 of 3) [HC-220/2025] 2. As per the pleadings, daughter of the petitioner was abducted on 20.06.2025, the day wife of the petitioner expired. On 23.06.2025, the petitioner made a complaint at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur. The grievance is that no action is being taken. 3. From reading of the complaint, it is evident that there are strained relationship between the petitioner and in-laws. The petitioner was not called for the last rites of the deceased-wife. As per the complaint, the wife was getting treatment for last one year at her paternal home as father and mother of the petitioner were not in a position to take care of the daughter-in-law. 4. Prima-facie the allegation of abduction pleaded are incorrect. The wife of the petitioner was staying in her paternal home for last one year and there is no pleading that at that time, the petitioner was taking care of the minor daughter and she was staying with him. 5. Considering that there are disputed questions of fact, the petitioner has withheld relevant facts from the Court with regard to custody of the minor child during the stay of wife of the petitioner in her paternal home. 6. Another aspect to be considered is that welfare of the child is of paramount importance in custody matters. In absence of evidence before this Court and the entire factual position not having been depicted, this Court is not in a position to decide the paramount welfare of the child. 7. Furthermore, alternative remedy is available before the family court, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. [2025:RJ-JP:24210-DB] (3 of 3) [HC-220/2025] 8. The petition is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple/Monika/59