JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner (father of the victim) has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for custody of the victim and directing that the victim be kept in a Protective Home for one year from the date of the order. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner. 4. The Police Station, Wani registered Crime No. 3100 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act of 1956 and three girls (including the daughter of the petitioner) are rescued on 6th April, 2015 from the custody of the concerned accused. The victim girls were kept in Sarswati Shikshan Mahila Mandal's 'Stree Aadhar Kendra', Krishna Nagar Chowk, Mul Road, Chandrapur. The victim girls were produced before the Magistrate on 11th April, 2015 for orders regarding custody for the purpose of their safety and protection. 5. The learned Magistrate had passed order under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1956 directing the Probationary Officer to make enquiry as to the suitability of the claimants/guardians and to submit report and the directions were given to keep the victims in Remand Home. As the report of the Probationary Officer was not received and as the victim cannot be kept in the interim custody for the period exceeding three weeks as per second proviso below subsection (3) of Section 17 of the Act of 1956 and as the report of Probationary Officer was not received, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 30th April, 2015 directing that the victim be kept in nearest Protective Home for the period of one year from the date of the order and the application filed by the petitioner praying for custody of his daughter was rejected. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, filed revision application before the Sessions Court, which is dismissed by the order dated 30th October, 2015. The petitioner, being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this petition. 6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, filed revision application before the Sessions Court, which is dismissed by the order dated 30th October, 2015. The petitioner, being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this petition. 6. Shri R.M. Patwardhan, advocate for the petitioner has submitted that without there being any report of the Probationary Officer under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1956, the learned Magistrate could not have passed the order under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1956 directing that the victim be kept in the nearest Protective Home for the period of one year. To support this submission, the learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Renuka Durgappa Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 143. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being father of the victim, is entitled for the custody of the victim and failure on the part of the subordinate Courts to appreciate this aspect, vitiates the orders passed by them. It is submitted that the subordinate Courts have also not considered that the petitioner has right to seek custody of the victim after the reply of the report of the Probationary Officer, if nothing adverse is found against the petitioner. It is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the custody of the victim be given to the petitioner. 7. Shri S.M. Bhagde, learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that the victim is aged about 21 years and she has not made any grievance against the directions given by the learned Magistrate that she should be kept in Protective Home for one year. Challenging the locus of the petitioner to maintain the petition, the learned A.P.P. has submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner is 'aggrieved person'. The learned A.P.P. has pointed out that the daughter of the petitioner was previously also rescued by a N.G.O. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs. 8. Challenging the locus of the petitioner to maintain the petition, the learned A.P.P. has submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner is 'aggrieved person'. The learned A.P.P. has pointed out that the daughter of the petitioner was previously also rescued by a N.G.O. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs. 8. Considering the fact that the victim (daughter of the petitioner) is undisputedly aged about 21 years and is major and that the victim has not made any grievance against the impugned orders, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner cannot be said to be the "aggrieved person" and the petition at his behest is not maintainable. In view of the conclusion on the above point, the judgment relied upon by the advocate of the petitioner is not required to be considered. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.