Child Welfare Committee Has Final Authority Over Custody Of Rescued Minor Whose Mother Is Allegedly Involved In Prostitution Racket: Karnataka High Court
Court holds that under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Child Welfare Committee has the final authority over custody and restoration of rescued child victims; refuses to hand over the girl to her mother amid allegations that she had earlier pushed the child into prostitution
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the custody of a minor rescued from a prostitution racket cannot be handed over to a mother when there are allegations that the parent herself was involved in pushing the child into prostitution, observing that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) has the final authority in matters concerning the custody and restoration of rescued child victims.
The Single-Judge Bench noted that judicial precedents have made it clear that notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 the final authority in matters relating to custody and restoration of a child lies with the Child Welfare Committee constituted under Section 29 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The Court observed that when a person rescued under the Act appears to be below the age of 18, the Magistrate must transfer the matter to the Child Welfare Committee, which is empowered to deal with such cases under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a criminal petition filed by the mother challenging the rejection of her application seeking custody of her daughter. “Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is right in contending that 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. 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”, the Bench held.
While placing reliance on Prerana v. State Of Maharashtra 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 984, it further noted, “…that when persons rescued under the Act are produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate should under Section 17(2) of the Act, ascertain their ages on the very first time they are produced before him. If such a person is found to be under 18 years of age, the Magistrate must transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board if such person - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3305 CRL.P No. 17299 of 2025 is a Juvenile in conflict with law, or to the Child Welfare Committee if such person is a child in need of care and protection”.
Advocate Gireesha R. J. appeared for the petitioner and B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP appeared for the respondent.
As per the facts, the minor girl had been rescued by the police during a raid conducted in connection with a prostitution racket and was subsequently placed under institutional care. The petitioner–mother approached the court seeking custody of the child.
However, the authorities opposed the plea, pointing out that the girl had previously been rescued in an earlier incident and was then restored to her mother. According to the prosecution, the mother allegedly sent the child back into the prostitution racket, leading to her rescue once again in the present case.
In view of these allegations, the subordinate court declined to hand over custody to the mother, prompting the present petition before the High Court.
Now, while examining the issue, the Court referred to the legal framework governing rescued child victims under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Furthermore, referring to the guidelines issued in earlier judicial decisions, the Court further noted that the Magistrate must ascertain the age of rescued persons at the earliest opportunity. If the person is found to be a minor, the case must be transferred either to the Juvenile Justice Board (if the person is a juvenile in conflict with law) or to the Child Welfare Committee (if the person is a child in need of care and protection), it noted.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court held that the rescued child could not be handed over to the mother, particularly in light of the allegations that she had earlier used her daughter in a prostitution racket.
Cause Title: X v. State [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:3305]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Gireesha R. J, Advocate.
Respondent: B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP.