Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling protecting personal liberty and clarifying the limits of judicial power in maintenance proceedings, has held that a Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) while executing an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with maintenance to wives, children and parents. The judgment was delivered by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti in a writ petition filed by Mohammed Azeem, who challenged the legality of an order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru, directing issuance of a Look Out Circular against him at the instance of his wife for alleged non-compliance with a maintenance order. The High Court examined the nature of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the purpose and legal framework governing Look Out Circulars, and the constitutional implications of restricting an individual’s movement through executive measures without statutory backing. Emphasising that maintenance proceedings create a civil obligation enforced through judicial mechanisms expressly provided under law, the Court held that resorting to immigration control tools meant for criminal suspects amounts to jurisdictional overreach, illegality and a serious violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment also took note of the disturbing trend where Look Out Circulars continue to remain active despite court orders suspending or setting them aside, thereby undermining the authority of judicial orders and causing grave prejudice to individuals.

Arguments of Both Sides:

On behalf of the petitioner-husband, it was contended that the Family Court had acted wholly without jurisdiction in issuing a Look Out Circular while executing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner argued that Section 125 proceedings are quasi-civil in nature and the statute itself provides a complete code for enforcement in cases of default, which includes attachment of property, issuance of warrant, and civil imprisonment subject to statutory safeguards. It was submitted that Look Out Circulars are executive measures intended to prevent accused persons or offenders involved in serious crimes from evading the criminal justice system and have no application in civil or quasi-civil disputes like maintenance enforcement. Strong reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, where the Apex Court held that coercive measures for non-payment of maintenance must be used sparingly and only where default is wilful and contumacious, and even then strictly within the bounds of law. The petitioner further submitted that issuance of an LOC has severe consequences on personal liberty, livelihood and reputation, especially for individuals residing or working abroad, and such drastic action cannot be taken without clear statutory authority. It was also argued that continuing an LOC despite suspension or challenge amounts to contempt of court and administrative arbitrariness. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent-wife argued that once a maintenance order is passed, compliance is mandatory and deliberate non-payment cannot be tolerated. It was submitted that the petitioner was residing outside India, had failed to honour the maintenance order, and that the Family Court was left with no effective option to secure compliance. According to the respondent, the issuance of an LOC was justified to ensure the presence of the husband and prevent him from evading his legal responsibility. The State authorities, while defending the action, did not dispute the absence of an explicit statutory provision but sought to justify the measure on grounds of enforcement necessity.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully examining the statutory scheme, constitutional principles and judicial precedents, the Karnataka High Court unequivocally held that a Family Court has no power to issue a Look Out Circular while executing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that an order under Section 125 creates a civil obligation, and the remedies for its enforcement are exhaustively provided under the CrPC itself. The Court clarified that in case of default, the law permits execution through attachment of property, issuance of warrant of arrest, or sentencing to civil imprisonment, subject to compliance with procedural safeguards. The Court categorically held that Look Out Circulars operate in a completely different domain and are meant to prevent accused persons involved in criminal offences from fleeing the country, not to coerce payment of maintenance. It observed that issuance of an LOC in such cases amounts to converting a civil enforcement mechanism into a criminal restraint without authority of law. The Court further held that continuing an LOC despite a court order suspending or setting it aside is not only illegal but also amounts to contempt of court and a direct violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which includes the right to travel abroad. Expressing concern over the routine practice of authorities failing to withdraw LOCs even after judicial intervention, the Court directed the Director General of Police to issue clear instructions to all concerned authorities mandating immediate communication and withdrawal of LOCs whenever courts suspend or quash them. The Court further directed that responsibility must be fixed on the officer who requisitioned the LOC, and departmental action initiated in cases of non-compliance, observing that otherwise court orders would lose their sanctity. Additionally, the Registrar General was directed to circulate the judgment to all courts dealing with Section 125 proceedings to ensure that no Family Court issues Look Out Circulars in maintenance matters. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the impugned order of the Family Court, reaffirming that enforcement of maintenance cannot come at the cost of constitutional liberties or statutory discipline.