Mother jailed for attempting to sell newborn, but who will care for her disabled husband and six kids?

This contrasts with a similar case where an appeals court issued a suspended sentence and recommended financial assistance from local authorities.

Arrested in the courtroom

According to court documents reviewed by Kun.uz, Matluba Karimova, born in 1989, attempted to sell her newborn son, who was born on November 6, 2024, for 62 million UZS. She was caught on November 13, 2024, when she received the money from an undercover agent during a sting operation conducted by the Surkhandarya Transport Security Department.

On January 14, 2025, the Jarkurgan District Criminal Court found her guilty under Article 135, Part 3(a) of the Criminal Code (human trafficking) and, considering Article 57, sentenced her to three years in a general-regime prison.

Appeal rejected

Matluba Karimova appealed the sentence, admitting her guilt and expressing remorse. She pleaded for a lighter sentence, citing her six children and dire financial situation. However, on February 18, 2025, the Surkhandarya Regional Court upheld the original ruling, leaving her prison term unchanged.

"We have no home; my husband is disabled"

In court, Karimova explained that she attempted to sell her baby out of desperation to buy a house.

"I have six children. My husband is a Group II disabled person. Neither of us has a job. We live in extreme poverty and have no home, so we rent. I was desperate to buy a house, and that’s why I made this decision. I deeply regret my actions. Please consider my family’s hardship and grant me leniency," she said.

The court acknowledged that she had no prior criminal record and took into account her remorse and difficult living conditions. However, it also cited her "malicious intent" in the crime as an aggravating factor.

Similar cases

A comparable case occurred earlier in Kibray district, Tashkent region, where 35-year-old Zulkhumor Abdurakhimova was sentenced to eight years for selling her 10-year-old daughter. However, after a Kun.uz investigation, the appeals court reduced her sentence to five years, converted it into a suspended sentence, and released her from custody. Additionally, the court ordered local authorities to improve her financial situation.

Lighter sentences for human traffickers

While a mother in desperate poverty received a prison sentence, other human traffickers have been given lighter punishments.

In Samarkand, 41-year-old L.R. attempted to send a woman to Dubai for prostitution and was caught receiving $3,000 in a sting operation. She was sentenced to four years of restricted freedom rather than imprisonment.

Similarly, in Fergana, M.A., a woman born in 1994, was caught at Samarkand International Airport trying to traffic a woman to Moscow for prostitution. She received a three-year restricted freedom sentence rather than a prison term.

Who will care for the disabled husband and six children?

Unlike in Abdurakhimova’s case, where the appeals court reduced her sentence and ensured financial support, the court in Karimova’s case refused to make any adjustments, despite her six children and disabled husband.

It is clear that Karimova made a terrible mistake, and her actions cannot be justified. However, it is also evident that her decision stemmed from extreme poverty, a fact she repeatedly stated in court while pleading for leniency.

Is it truly fair and just to send a mother to prison for three years, leaving a disabled husband and six children in an even worse situation?

Could a more humane approach have been taken?

This wasn’t a random crime — it was set up by law enforcement. The court ruling clearly states that the buyer was an undercover agent, meaning the entire situation was orchestrated to secure an arrest.

Couldn’t the police have intervened earlier, offering preventive measures or support instead of waiting until the transaction occurred?

The judge who issued the prison sentence, Tohir Bekpolatov, and the appeals court judges, O. Ergashov, A. Shomurodov, and J. Khudoyberdiev, made a decision that left six children without their mother and a disabled husband without care.

Was this truly the best course of action?