Mother Who Allegedly Pushed Daughter Into Prostitution Cannot Claim Custody Under ITP Act: Karnataka High Court

"The Child Cannot Be Handed Over To The Mother Who Is Allegedly Using Her Daughter In The Prostitution Racket", Karnataka High Court has delivered a striking ruling that places the welfare of a rescued child victim firmly above the biological claim of a mother who allegedly forced her own daughter into prostitution — and has done so not once, but twice.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, refusing to interfere with the rejection of the custody application, held that a mother cannot invoke Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to reclaim custody of her rescued daughter when prima facie material on record shows that it was the mother herself who pushed the child into the flesh trade.

The Court also settled an important question of statutory primacy: when a child under 18 years of age is rescued from a prostitution racket, it is the Juvenile Justice Act and the Child Welfare Committee — not the Magistrate acting under the IT Act — that hold supreme and final authority over her custody and rehabilitation.

The petitioner, the mother of a minor victim girl, approached the Karnataka High Court challenging an order dated 15th November 2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District, whereby her application under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 seeking custody of her daughter had been rejected.

The victim girl had been rescued from a lodge in Bengaluru running a prostitution racket, and a crime came to be registered in Crime No. 395/2025 for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the IT Act, Sections 4, 8, 12, 17 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 64(1), 62, 75 and 143(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. At the time of rescue, the girl was 17 years of age and was placed in a Child Welfare Home by the State.

The mother then filed an application claiming that since her daughter had since attained 18 years of age, she could no longer be detained in the Child Welfare Home and must be handed over to the mother under Section 17(2) of the Act. The Sessions Court rejected the application, finding that the daughter had been forced into prostitution by the very mother claiming custody. It is this order that the mother challenged before the High Court.

The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 17(2) of the IT Act specifically provides that once a rescued person attains the age of 18 years, she cannot continue to be held in a Child Welfare Home, and the mother is entitled to claim custody as a matter of course. The argument was one of pure statutory entitlement: majority negates the Home's jurisdiction.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor presented a deeply troubling picture to the Court. Investigation had revealed that this was not the first time the mother had been involved in such conduct. An earlier crime had been registered against the mother in Cr. No. 332/2024 at Beguru Police Station for the very same offences under the IT Act. After the victim was released into the mother's custody pursuant to that earlier case, the mother had placed the daughter back into the same prostitution racket — leading to the fresh registration of Crime No. 395/2025. The Prosecutor also pointed out, with candor, that the mother ought to have been charge-sheeted as an accused in the present crime but was inadvertently left out — an omission he described as not intentional.

"It Is Only The Child Welfare Committee Which Has The Final Authority In Respect Of Custody And Restoration Of A Child Victim"

Justice Nagaprasanna, after examining Sections 17 and 17A of the IT Act in detail alongside the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, expressed strong agreement with the State's position and dismissed the petition with a clear finding that the child's welfare must prevail over the mother's biological claim.

The Court observed with sharp disapproval that the mother had been given custody once before in the earlier crime, and had thereafter returned the daughter to the very same prostitution racket. The Court found the statements of the victim and other witnesses in the charge sheet to prima facie establish the mother's complicity, and held that this was sufficient to disentitle her from custody.

The Court expressed its concern about the inadvertent omission of the mother from the charge sheet, observing: "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."

On the crucial question of which statute governs — the IT Act or the JJ Act — the Court placed heavy reliance on the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court's ruling in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4101, which had extensively referred to the Bombay High Court's landmark directions in Prerana v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 984.

The Delhi High Court in that case had held that the JJ Act, being a later and more specific enactment for persons under 18 years of age, prevails over the general provisions of the IT Act. It had categorically declared: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17 and 17(A) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, by virtue of Section 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 enactment which has the final authority in respect of the custody and restoration of a child victim — a child in need of care and protection."

The Court noted the Bombay High Court's specific directions in Prerana that any juvenile rescued from a brothel must be released only to a parent or guardian who has been found fit by the Child Welfare Committee; and if such parent or guardian is found unfit, the full rehabilitation procedure under the JJ Act must be followed. A Magistrate before whom rescued persons are produced must forthwith ascertain their age, and if found to be under 18 years, must immediately transfer the case to the Child Welfare Committee.

The Karnataka High Court adopted these principles in their entirety and held that a minor rescued from prostitution must be treated as a "child in need of care and protection" — not as a "juvenile in conflict with law" — and that Section 17(2) of the IT Act does not, and cannot, override the primacy of the Child Welfare Committee's jurisdiction under the JJ Act. A mother seeking custody of such a rescued child under the IT Act cannot bypass the Child Welfare Committee, which alone has the authority to assess her fitness.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court held that when prima facie material shows the mother used her daughter for prostitution and placed her back into the same racket after a prior release, the child cannot be handed over to the custody of such a mother. The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Sessions Court rejecting the custody application was upheld.

The Karnataka High Court's ruling sends a powerful message: a biological mother's claim to custody is not absolute under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and certainly not when the mother herself stands accused — even prima facie — of trafficking her own child. The Court has reinforced that the Juvenile Justice Act's architecture, with the Child Welfare Committee at its centre, is the supreme framework governing the fate of all children rescued from prostitution, regardless of what the older IT Act may say about Magistrates and custody. The mother's repeated conduct of returning the daughter to the flesh trade was itself the most compelling answer to her legal argument.

Date of Decision: 21st January 2026