The Karnataka High Court refused to grant custody of a rescued girl to her mother, noting that the child could not be handed over to a parent allegedly involved in forcing her into prostitution.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order on January 21, 2026, while dismissing Criminal Petition No. 17299 of 2025. The petition challenged the rejection of the mother’s custody application under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Challenge To Sessions Court Order
The petition challenged an order dated November 15, 2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District, in Crime No. 395/2025. The Sessions Court had rejected the mother’s application seeking custody of her daughter.
Advocate Sri Gireesha R.J. represented the petitioner. Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha appeared for the State.
Background Of The Case
Police rescued the victim during a raid at a lodge allegedly operating a prostitution racket. Authorities subsequently placed the girl in a Child Welfare Home.
The petitioner later approached the court claiming to be the victim’s mother. She filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act seeking custody of her daughter.
The mother argued that the victim had already attained 18 years of age. Therefore, she contended that the girl could not continue to remain in a Child Welfare Home and should be released to her parent.
State Opposes Custody
The Additional State Public Prosecutor opposed the plea and referred to the ongoing investigation in Crime No. 395/2025.
The prosecution submitted that the victim had been rescued from a prostitution racket. It further argued that available material suggested that the mother herself had forced the girl into prostitution.
The State also pointed out that an earlier case had been registered at Beguru Police Station (Crime No. 332/2024). In that case, authorities had released the victim to the same mother’s custody. However, the victim was later found involved again in a similar racket.
Court Examines Legal Provisions
The Court examined the statutory framework under Sections 17 and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Section 17 requires the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry into the age, character, and antecedents of the rescued person, as well as the suitability of parents or guardians before granting custody.
Section 17A further requires verification of the capacity and genuineness of parents or guardians before a rescued person is handed over to them.
Reliance On Judicial Precedents
Justice Nagaprasanna also referred to earlier judicial precedents.
The Court cited Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India (2014 SCC OnLine Del 4101) and the Bombay High Court decision in Prerana v. State of Maharashtra (2002 SCC OnLine Bom 984).
These decisions emphasise that children rescued from trafficking or prostitution should generally be treated as children in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Courts must therefore prioritise the welfare of the child while deciding custody.
Court’s Findings
After examining the record, the Court noted that the statements of the victim and other material prima facie indicated that the mother had compelled the girl into prostitution.
In such circumstances, the Court held that returning the child to the petitioner would be unsafe.
Petition Dismissed
The High Court ultimately held that the rescued girl could not be handed over to a mother allegedly involved in a prostitution racket.
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the criminal petition and declined to interfere with the Sessions Court’s order rejecting the custody application.
