The Karnataka High Court has declined to return a young woman rescued from a prostitution racket to her mother, stressing that a parent facing allegations of forcing a child into sex work cannot automatically claim custody.
The case arose after a girl, who had been rescued at the age of 17 during a police raid on a lodge operating as part of a prostitution network, was placed in a Child Welfare Home for protection. After she turned 18, her mother approached the court seeking to take her back, arguing that she could no longer remain under state care once she had attained adulthood.
However, the Court signaled strong reservations. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the safety of the rescued girl must remain the overriding concern, particularly where serious allegations surround the parent seeking custody.
The judge remarked that when a child is rescued from a prostitution racket and there are accusations that the mother herself pushed the girl into such exploitation, handing the girl back to that very parent would be deeply troubling.
The matter traces back to a police raid in Electronic City where the minor was found during an operation targeting a prostitution ring. Following the rescue, she was produced before the appropriate authority and placed in a Child Welfare Home in line with procedures under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which mandates protective custody for rescued minors while inquiries are conducted.
The mother later sought interim custody through the sessions court. But the request ran into a troubling history. Records showed that the girl had earlier been rescued in a similar case and was returned to her family. Allegations later surfaced that she had again been pushed into prostitution after returning home, allegedly with the mother’s involvement.
Taking note of this pattern, the sessions court refused the custody request.
When the matter reached the High Court, the bench examined provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act dealing with background inquiries and verification before a rescued person can be restored to a parent. The Court also referred to a ruling of the Delhi High Court which recognised that children rescued in trafficking cases should be treated as “children in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The High Court also expressed surprise that despite suspicions surrounding the mother’s role, she had not been included as an accused when the charge sheet was filed.
During the hearing, the State acknowledged that the mother should have been booked in connection with the alleged exploitation and that her omission from the case records appeared to be an error.
The Court clarified that it was not deciding the criminal case itself. But it made clear that the mere fact that the girl had turned 18 did not entitle the mother to immediate custody, particularly when allegations suggest the parent may have played a role in the exploitation.
Finding no reason to overturn the earlier decision, the High Court dismissed the mother’s petition, leaving the earlier refusal of custody in place.
