Facts
The petitioner, the mother of a victim girl, challenged an order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, which rejected her application for the custody of her daughter.
Source reference: p. 2The victim was rescued from a prostitution racket during a police raid at a lodge and placed in a Child Welfare Home.
Source reference: p. 2Charges were filed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), the POCSO Act, and the BNS.
Source reference: p. 10-11The petitioner sought custody under Section 17(2) of the ITPA, contending that since the victim had attained 18 years of age, she could no longer be detained by the State.
Source reference: p. 3However, the prosecution alleged that the petitioner mother had previously secured the girl's release in a similar case and then forced her back into prostitution.
Source reference: p. 4, 11Issues
Whether a victim rescued from a prostitution racket must be handed over to the custody of the mother upon attaining the age of 18, notwithstanding allegations that the mother forced the victim into the trade.
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
The court primarily applied Sections 17 and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Source reference: p. 5-7Section 17(2) mandates an inquiry into the suitability of parents or guardians before granting custody.
Source reference: p. 7Section 17A requires the Magistrate to satisfy himself of the "capacity or genuineness" of the parent through investigation.
Source reference: p. 7The court also relied on the principle from *Prerana v. State of Maharashtra* and *Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India*, which establish that the welfare and protection of the child/victim are paramount.
Source reference: p. 13Custody should not be restored to a person likely to exercise a "harmful influence".
Source reference: p. 5, 23Reasoning
The court reasoned that although the victim had turned 18, the statutory framework of the ITPA, specifically the provisos to Section 17, prohibits restoring a rescued person to the custody of anyone who may exercise a "harmful influence" over them.
Source reference: p. 5-6The court noted that the petitioner was allegedly involved in forcing her own daughter into prostitution, treating the victim as a source of income rather than a child in need of protection.
Source reference: p. 11-12The court scrutinized the charge sheet and investigation reports which indicated that the victim was a repeat victim of the same racket after previously being released to the mother.
Source reference: p. 4, 11Citing *Gaurav Jain v. Union of India*, the court emphasized that the child’s safety is insecure in the custody of a mother involved in such trade.
Source reference: p. 25-26Thus, the legal requirement for "suitability" of the parent under Section 17(2) was not met.
Source reference: p. 29Holding
The court answered the issue in the negative, holding that a mother alleged to have forced her daughter into prostitution is not a "suitable" person for custody under Section 17(2) of the ITPA, regardless of the victim attaining adulthood.
The Court expressed concern that the mother had not been formally booked in the current charge sheet despite the allegations.
Source reference: p. 12Consequently, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court's order and rejected the criminal petition.
Source reference: p. 30Original Court PDF
Doly Prabhat Maithy v. State by Electronic City Police Station [2026:KHC:3305]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in