BACK TO SECTIONS
BNS 2024ACTIVE FRAMEWORK

Section 93

Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years, by parent or person having care of it

Replaces colonial-era: IPC 317

BailableCognizable: CognizableMagistrate First Class

Reform Highlights

1

Renumbered from IPC 317 to BNS 93.

2

Substantive law preserved — abandonment with intent remains punishable with up to 7 years.

THE STATUTE

The Clause

Whoever being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years, or having the care of such child, shall expose or leave such child in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Legal Commentary

Section 93 creates criminal liability for parents and guardians who deliberately abandon children under the age of 12. The offence is not accidental separation or temporary absence — it requires the 'intention of wholly abandoning' the child. The law recognises that children under 12 lack the physical and cognitive resources to survive independently and are utterly dependent on the adults who have assumed responsibility for their care. Abandonment in this context means leaving the child in circumstances where the adult has no intention of returning or making provision for the child's care. This covers leaving a toddler at a bus stop and walking away; dropping a child at a hospital without registering them and disappearing; leaving a sick child at a religious institution or orphanage gate without any official transfer of custody; and abandoning children in remote locations. The section applies to parents and to 'any person having the care of such child' — including stepparents, guardians, domestic employers of child workers, and anyone who has voluntarily assumed responsibility for the child's welfare. The bailable nature of the offence has been criticised as inconsistent with its maximum 7-year penalty, but courts often impose stringent conditions on bail in serious cases.

Landmark Precedents

Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India (2008)

(2008) 13 SCC 518
RELEVANCE

Surrogacy case discussing child abandonment law — BNS 93 protects abandoned children; the state has parens patriae duty to protect children left without parental care.

Case Simulations

"Leaving a 3-year-old at a crowded railway station and boarding a train — BNS 93 if the intent is to permanently abandon."
"Abandoning a 10-year-old child with a disability at a temple gate with no communication to any authority or family member — BNS 93."
"A domestic employer who, when a child domestic worker falls ill, dumps the child at a government hospital with no identification and disappears — BNS 93."
"Placing a newborn in a designated 'baby box' (cradle scheme) at a government hospital — not an offence as these are legitimate surrender mechanisms."

Expert Insights

Parents (mother or father) or any person who has the delegated care or custody of the child — including guardians, employers of child domestic workers, and others who have voluntarily assumed responsibility for the child's welfare.
If you formally transfer custody through proper channels — registering with the institution, informing Child Welfare Committee, etc. — that is not criminal abandonment. The offence requires 'wholly abandoning' without any such provision. Surrendering a child through proper legal channels is not a crime.
If the intent is to permanently abandon the child and the relative is not formally assuming guardianship, it can still constitute abandonment. If the child is being left temporarily with a known relative with a genuine intention to return or make proper arrangements, the intent element is absent.