Karnataka High Court denies custody to mother accused of sending daughter back into prostitution after rescue

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to grant custody of a girl rescued from a prostitution racket to her mother, holding that allegations of the mother’s involvement in pushing the child into sex work must be examined before any such handover.

The mother had approached the Court seeking custody of her daughter, who was rescued from a prostitution racket at the age of 17 and was subsequently placed in a Child Welfare Home.

She argued that the girl had since turned 18 and, therefore, could no longer be kept in State care and should be handed over to her.

Emphasising that the girl’s safety must take precedence, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,

"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."

The case stemmed from a rescue operation conducted by the Electronic City Police in which the girl, then 17 years old, was found during a raid at a lodge, which was running a prostitution racket.

After being rescued, the girl was produced before the competent authority and placed in a Child Welfare Home in accordance with the procedure under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which requires that a rescued minor be kept in safe custody pending inquiry to ensure her protection and prevent further exploitation.

The mother then moved an application under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (a provision that allows a court to decide who should have interim custody of a person rescued in a trafficking raid) before the sessions court, seeking custody of her, now 18-year-old daughter.

The sessions court noted that this was not an isolated incident. The records showed that the girl had earlier been rescued in a similar case and was later handed back to her mother.

However, there were allegations indicating that after returning home, the child was once again pushed into prostitution, allegedly at her mother’s behest.

The sessions court, therefore, rejected the mother's plea for custody over her daughter on November 15, 2025.

Challenging that decision, the mother then approached the High Court.

In examining the matter, the High Court referred to Sections 17 (inquiry into background and suitability before custody) and 17A (verification of a parent’s capacity and genuineness before restoration) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The Court also relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India, which held that children rescued under the Immoral Traffic Act are to be treated as “children in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (empowers Child Welfare Committee to take decisions regarding care, protection and restoration).

The High Court observed that there appeared to be material indicating the mother’s role in allegedly forcing the girl into prostitution.

The Court questioned why, despite these allegations, the mother had not been named as an accused in the case.

"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 said.

During arguments, the State's counsel admitted that the mother ought to have been booked for forcing her daughter into prostitution, and that the failure to do so was an inadvertent error.

The Court went on to opine that it was not examining the merits of the criminal case, but held that a parent is not entitled to custody over the child in this case merely because the girl had turned 18 years old, particularly since there are allegations of the parent's involvement in the child's exploitation.

Finding no ground to interfere with the sessions court’s order, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Advocate MS Bhagwat appeared for the petitioner (mother).

High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) RD Renukaradhya represented the State.

[Read Order]