Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, declined to hand over custody of a rescued minor girl to her mother, citing prima facie allegations that the mother had repeatedly forced her daughter into prostitution. The petitioner, claiming custody on the ground that her daughter had attained 18 years of age, had her application rejected after the Court noted that the Child Welfare Committee holds final authority over custody matters concerning rescued child victims, and that the girl could not be returned to a parent allegedly responsible for her exploitation.

The matter arose from a petition filed by the mother of a rescued girl challenging the rejection of her application seeking custody of her daughter under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The girl had been rescued during a police raid at a lodge where a prostitution racket was allegedly operating. Following the rescue, the State placed the girl in a Child Welfare Home. The petitioner approached the competent court seeking custody, contending that her daughter had attained the age of eighteen years and therefore could not continue to remain in the Child Welfare Home.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court's Five-Year Inaction After Reserving Judgment Forces Supreme Court To Invoke Article 139A And Transfer Revisions To Itself

The Sessions Court rejected the application after examining the circumstances surrounding the rescue and the investigation. The investigation revealed that a crime had been registered for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The investigating officer’s report also indicated that the girl had earlier been involved in another case and had been released to the custody of her mother.

The State opposed the petition and submitted that the available material suggested that the petitioner herself had compelled the victim into prostitution. The prosecution contended that granting custody to the petitioner would be contrary to the protective scheme governing rescued victims.

The Court recorded: "The issue in the lis does not concern the merit of the crime or the charge sheet so filed by the State. The statement of the victim and the statement of others would prima facie indicate that the mother had forced the daughter to prostitution."

The Court further observed: "Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is right in contending that when a child is rescued from a prostitution racket and is in the custody of the State or the Child Welfare Home, but when there are allegations against the mother that she is indulging in the act of using her daughter for the purpose of prostitution, the girl should not be handed over to the custody of the mother."

On the omission of the mother from the charge sheet, the Court stated: "It is un-understandable as to how the mother is left while filing the charge sheet, notwithstanding the fact that there is a lurking suspicion that she has indulged in forcing her daughter for prostitution albeit, prima facie, and how could the mother be left off while filing the charge sheet."

The Court referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India (2014), where it was held that notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 17 and 17(A) of the Act, by virtue of Sections 31(1) and 39(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is only the Child Welfare Committee constituted under Section 29 of the JJ Act which has the final authority in respect of the custody and restoration of a child victim.

Also Read: Altering Child's Surname To Reflect Maternal Lineage Does Not Affect Father's Substantive Legal Rights When Mother Is Sole Caregiver: Karnataka High Court

The Court also referred to the guidelines provided by the High Court of Bombay in Prerana v. State of Maharashtra (2002), which stated that when persons rescued under the Act are produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate should, under Section 17(2) of the Act, ascertain their ages on the very first time they are produced before him. If such a person is found to be under 18 years of age, the Magistrate must transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board if such person is a juvenile in conflict with law, or to the Child Welfare Committee if such person is a child in need of care and protection.

Concluding, the Court directed: "In light of the afore-quoted judgment, I am of the considered view that the child cannot be handed over to the mother who is allegedly using her daughter in the prostitution racket. Therefore, the petition lacking in merit, stands rejected."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Gireesha R. J., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor

Case Title: XXX v State
Neutral Citation: 2026: KHC:3305
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 17299 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna