The Karnataka High Court has ruled that Family Courts cannot issue Look-Out Circulars (LOCs) to enforce maintenance orders under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision clarifies the limits of judicial powers in family law execution proceedings. The High Court’s order emphasizes that LOCs are meant to stop an accused person from leaving the country in a criminal case. They are not meant to recover unpaid maintenance dues from a defaulting party.
Facts of the Case
The case arose when a Family Court in Mangaluru issued a Look-Out Circular against a husband. The husband had allegedly failed to comply with a maintenance order. He was living outside India at the time. The LOC was intended to prevent him from travelling so that the maintenance order could be enforced. The husband challenged this LOC before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the Family Court lacked authority to issue it in the context of maintenance execution.
Maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC create a civil obligation to support a wife, children, or parents. If a person fails to comply with such an order, the law allows certain enforcement measures. These include attachment of property, arrest warrants, or civil imprisonment. However, the High Court noted that these remedies are distinct from criminal enforcement tools like LOCs. The Court explained that Look-Out Circulars are designed to prevent criminal offenders or accused persons from escaping the reach of the criminal justice system. They are not part of the statutory machinery for civil enforcement of maintenance.
What Court Says
In its judgment, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti pointed out that continuing an LOC after a court order suspends it amounts to both illegality and contempt of court. The Court also said that such an action can violate the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court relied on legal principles and prior judgments to reinforce that civil enforcement of maintenance must stay within the statutory framework established by law.
The High Court agreed with the petitioner’s arguments. It held that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to issue a Look-Out Circular while executing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court also observed that officers who requested issuance of LOCs often failed to withdraw them promptly, even after a court order has suspended the circular. To fix this practice, the Court directed the Director General of Police to issue instructions to all authorities. These instructions must ensure that whenever a court suspends an LOC, the requisitioning authority must immediately inform the Bureau of Immigration and secure the withdrawal of the LOC.
The Court further directed that the officer who requested the LOC should be held responsible if they fail to communicate a suspension or withdrawal order. The High Court warned that if no responsibility is fixed, court orders would lose their sanctity. The Court also asked the Registrar General to circulate a copy of its order to all courts dealing with maintenance executions under Section 125 CrPC. This directive is meant to spread clear legal guidance that Look-Out Circulars cannot be used for maintenance enforcement.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implications
By allowing the writ petition and setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court has set an important precedent. This ruling limits the use of immigration control mechanisms in civil enforcement. It ensures that enforcement of maintenance orders must remain within the prescribed legal tools and procedures. This decision also protects individuals from potential misuse of LOCs in civil matters, which could otherwise affect their freedom of movement without proper legal basis.
The judgment will influence how Family Courts handle maintenance execution cases across Karnataka. Lawyers and courts must now avoid issuing LOCs for maintenance enforcement. Instead, they will need to focus on legally authorized remedies under CrPC. This ruling reinforces the separation between civil execution processes and criminal law enforcement tools.
