Karnataka High Court has denied custody to a mother accused of sending her daughter back into prostitution after rescue. The Court said that when a mother is involved in exploiting her child, custody cannot be granted to her.
The Karnataka High Court denied a mother’s request for custody of her daughter, who was rescued from a prostitution racket, citing the need to investigate allegations regarding the mother’s possible involvement in facilitating the exploitation.
The mother sought custody of her daughter, now 18, arguing that she should not remain in State care after reaching adulthood.
However, Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasized that the girl’s safety was paramount, stating,
“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 situation arose following a rescue operation by the Electronic City Police, during which the girl, then 17, was discovered during a raid at a lodge involved in prostitution.
After her rescue, she was placed in a Child Welfare Home in accordance with the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which mandates that rescued minors be kept in secure custody until an inquiry is completed to ensure their protection.
Subsequently, the mother filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in the sessions court, requesting interim custody of her daughter.
The court pointed out that this wasn’t an isolated incident, as the girl had previously been rescued from a similar situation and returned to her mother, only to subsequently face allegations of being pushed back into prostitution by her mother.
Earlier, On November 15, 2025, the sessions court denied the mother’s custody request. The mother then appealed to the High Court.
In its review, the High Court referred to Sections 17 and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, which address the inquiry into a parent’s background and suitability for custody.
It also cited a ruling from the Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India, asserting that children rescued under the Act qualify as “children in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which grants authority to the Child Welfare Committee for decisions related to care and restoration.
The High Court noted that there was substantial evidence suggesting the mother’s alleged role in coercing her daughter into prostitution.
It raised concerns about why the mother was not included as an accused in the case despite the allegations, questioning,
“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.”
During the proceedings, the State’s counsel acknowledged that the mother should have been charged with coercing her daughter into prostitution, attributing the oversight to an error.
The Court clarified that it was not assessing the merits of the criminal case but ruled that a parent should not automatically gain custody over the child just because the girl was now 18, especially in light of the allegations against the mother regarding the child’s exploitation.
Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to set-aside the sessions court’s decision and dismissed the petition.
Advocate MS Bhagwat represented the mother, while High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) RD Renukaradhya represented the State.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Custody