### Custody of Rescued Victim Under ITP Act Denied Where Parent Allegedly Facilitated Prostitution Racket.

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

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.

It also directed

The Court expressed concern that the mother had not been formally booked in the current charge sheet despite the allegations.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court's order and rejected the criminal petition.

01Facts

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.

p. 2

The victim was rescued from a prostitution racket during a police raid at a lodge and placed in a Child Welfare Home.

p. 2

Charges were filed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), the POCSO Act, and the BNS.

pp. 10-11

The 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.

p. 3

However, 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.

p. 4, 11

02Issues

i.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.

pp. 4-5

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Sections 17 and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

pp. 5-7

Section 17(2) mandates an inquiry into the suitability of parents or guardians before granting custody.

p. 7

Section 17A requires the Magistrate to satisfy himself of the "capacity or genuineness" of the parent through investigation.

p. 7

The 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.

p. 13

Custody should not be restored to a person likely to exercise a "harmful influence".

p. 5, 23

Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64 Section 62 Section 75 Section 143

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Section 17 Section 15 Section 16 Section 7 Section 20

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4 Section 18 Section 8 Section 12 Section 17

04Reasoning

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.

pp. 5-6

The 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.

pp. 11-12

The 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.

p. 4, 11

Citing *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.

pp. 25-26

Thus, the legal requirement for "suitability" of the parent under Section 17(2) was not met.

p. 29