Crl. W. P. No. 1569 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1569 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 16, 2011 Jasmeen alias Pinky .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jasmeen alias Pinky has filed this Habeas Corpus writ petition to seek custody of her minor daughter Tania alleged to have been illegally detained by respondents no.3 and 4. Petitioner is wife of Walayat Khan, who is alleged to have committed suicide. Case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) regarding the said suicide is said to have been registered against the petitioner and her mother. Respondent no.3 is first wife of Walayat Khan. Respondent no.4 is said to be nephew of Walayat Khan. It Crl. W. P. No. 1569 of 2011 2 is alleged that respondents no.3 and 4 have snatched the petitioner's daughter Tania from her. Respondents no.3 and 4, in their separate replies, have controverted the averments made in the writ petition. They have stated that petitioner's daughter is not in their custody. They have also alleged that Tania is in the custody of her grandmother Karamety (mother of Walayat Khan and mother-in-law of the petitioner). It is also alleged in the replies that there is suicide note of Walayat Khan, who has specifically mentioned therein that his daughter Tania should remain with his mother Karamety. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, respondent no.3 is present in person in the Court along with Karamety, who has also brought the alleged detenue Tania. The petitioner is also present in person. On her request, the petitioner was allowed to meet her daughter Tania in the Court room for some time. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently controverted the stand taken by respondents no.3 and 4 in their replies and contended that petitioner's daughter was snatched by respondents no.3 and 4. However, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to replies of respondents no.3 and 4. Moreover, disputed questions of fact arise from the writ petition and the replies. These disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in writ Crl. W. P. No. 1569 of 2011 3 jurisdiction. Respondents no.3 and 4 have alleged suicide note of Walayat Khan desiring that his daughter Tania should remain with his mother. Counsel for the petitioner disputes this fact. Consequently, all these disputed facts can be adjudicated upon by the Guardian Court and not in the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on rival claims of the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Guardian Court for appropriate relief, in accordance with law. September 16, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE