Family Courts Cannot Issue Look Out Circulars for Non-Payment of Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Declares LOCs in 125 CrPC Proceedings as Illegal

"LOCs are meant to prevent accused from evading criminal process – not to recover maintenance dues under Section 125 CrPC," In a landmark judgment impacting matrimonial litigation and maintenance enforcement, the Karnataka High Court emphatically held that Family Courts have no jurisdiction to issue Look Out Circulars (LOCs) against husbands for non-payment of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court, presided over by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, termed the issuance of LOCs in such civil proceedings as not only illegal and ultra vires the CrPC, but also a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The ruling came in Writ Petition, where the husband challenged the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru in Crl.MC No. 45/2022, directing issuance of a Look Out Circular against him for defaulting in maintenance payment.

"Look Out Circulars are not a coercive tool for enforcement of civil orders" – High Court Issues Stern Directions to DGP

Judicial Overreach by Family Court in Maintenance Enforcement Curtailed

On examining the legality of the Family Court’s order, the High Court observed:

"The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing an order that is passed under Section 125 of CrPC... Maintenance orders are civil obligations enforced through judicial orders" [Para 6].

The Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument that Section 125(3) CrPC permits recovery of maintenance dues through attachment of property and civil imprisonment, as per Section 421 CrPC, but does not contemplate issuance of LOCs. In fact, the proviso to Section 421 explicitly prohibits arrest or detention for recovery of fine.

Background: LOC Issued Despite Availability of Legal Mechanisms Under CrPC

The petitioner-husband had defaulted on the payment of maintenance, following which the Family Court had already ordered attachment and sale of property on 05.10.2023. Despite this, the Family Court proceeded to issue a Look Out Circular against the husband, restricting his travel.

Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP, (2017) 6 SCC 266, the petitioner argued that coercive enforcement mechanisms such as striking off defence or even civil imprisonment may be used only as a last resort, and that extra-statutory methods like LOCs are impermissible.

Whether Family Courts Can Issue LOCs to Enforce Maintenance Orders under Section 125 CrPC

The High Court framed and answered the key legal question with clarity:

“LOC cannot be issued for recovering the dues of maintenance. Further, continuing the LOC despite the order passed by the Court is illegal and amounts to contempt of Court and it also amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” [Para 6]

The Court held that the object of LOCs is to ensure that an accused in a criminal case does not flee the country to avoid prosecution. However, proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are in the nature of civil remedies, and the Family Court cannot adopt coercive mechanisms not provided by the statute.

Violation of Fundamental Rights and Contempt of Court

What troubled the Court further was the continuation of the LOC even after the High Court had stayed its operation. Despite a stay order dated 28.07.2025, the Bureau of Immigration initially failed to delete the LOC, restricting the petitioner’s travel. This led the Court to issue serious directions to the Director General of Police:

“Continuing the LOC despite the order passed by the Court is illegal and amounts to contempt of Court and it also amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21.” [Para 6]

“The Director-General of Police shall issue necessary instructions to all the concerned... and responsibility shall be fixed on the officer who has requested for opening of a LOC, otherwise, there is no sanctity to the orders of the Court.” [Para 7]

The Court noted with concern that in multiple cases, requisitioning authorities fail to act upon court orders suspending LOCs, and such disobedience not only undermines judicial authority but could invite departmental action against erring officers.

Directions for Systemic Compliance and Judicial Discipline

Taking a proactive approach to prevent future misuse of LOCs in civil matters, the Court directed:

“The Registrar General shall communicate a copy of this order to all the Courts dealing with Section 125 CrPC proceedings/execution that Look Out Circulars cannot be issued.” [Para 8]

The Court also mandated that this judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Police, ensuring that standard operating procedures are institutionalized and enforced.

High Court Reaffirms the Limits of Judicial Power in Execution of Maintenance Orders

Allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned order of the Family Court, the Karnataka High Court has emphatically drawn the line between permissible statutory enforcement and judicial overreach in maintenance cases. The ruling reasserts that Section 125 CrPC, while protective of vulnerable spouses and children, cannot be stretched beyond its statutory contours.

The Court’s emphasis on personal liberty, due process, and procedural fairness, even in the emotionally charged realm of matrimonial litigation, reflects a strong reaffirmation of constitutional values:

“There is no sanctity to court orders if State agencies fail to comply – responsibility must be fixed and action taken” [Para 7].

Date of Decision: 22 September 2025