Can a man lose his foreign job just because a matrimonial case is registered against him? The Andhra Pradesh High Court answers this critical question and exposes how mechanical LOCs can silently destroy careers and liberty.
Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered an important judgment, holding that Look-Out Circulars (LOCs) cannot be issued mechanically in matrimonial cruelty cases under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
The case involved a petitioner who was working as an Electrical Technician in Dubai. His wife had initiated multiple legal proceedings including divorce, maintenance, and a criminal case under Section 85 of BNS (earlier Section 498-A IPC) along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner had appeared before the police upon receiving notice, was granted bail, and returned to Dubai. A charge sheet was later filed, and the criminal case was pending.
When he came to India on leave to attend family court proceedings, he was stopped at Visakhapatnam Airport on the basis of a Look-Out Circular issued against him. He was detained and later released after furnishing sureties. However, because of the pending LOC, he was unable to leave India and had to extend his leave. He informed the Court that if he could not return to Dubai by 08.02.2026, he would lose his employment.
The petitioner argued that he was fully cooperating with the investigation and attending court proceedings regularly. There was no Non-Bailable Warrant pending against him, nor was he evading the judicial process. He challenged the LOC as arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights.
The Court examined the 2017 and 2021 Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on Look-Out Circulars. These guidelines clearly state that LOCs can be issued only in exceptional circumstances—such as where a person’s departure would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security, integrity, strategic or economic interests of India, bilateral relations, or where the person may indulge in terrorism or offences against the State.
Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy made a crucial observation on how LOCs are being misused in matrimonial cases. The Court held:
“LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the respondent/police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner.
It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities or the offences which are against the Society. In such cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening the LOCs against the accused, not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued.”
The Court further noted that in the present case the alleged offence was under Section 498-A IPC and was not of such grave nature as to justify curtailing the petitioner’s travel and employment rights. It specifically recorded:
“In the case on hand, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC and the offence is not so grave and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.
These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected.
On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect his career. In most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open LOC against the petitioner herein.”
The Court emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely because a case is registered. In matrimonial disputes, which often take years to conclude and may even end in settlement, mechanically preventing a person from travelling abroad can cause permanent professional and financial damage.
The State argued that if the LOC was cancelled, the petitioner might avoid judicial proceedings. However, the Court found no material to support this apprehension. There was no evidence of non-cooperation, evasion, or violation of bail conditions.
After considering the legal position and precedents, the Court held that the petitioner did not fall within the exceptional categories contemplated under the Ministry’s Office Memorandum. It concluded that continuance of the LOC was unwarranted and accordingly quashed the Look-Out Circular.
Explanatory Table: Laws and Sections Discussed in the Case
| Law / Provision | Section | What It Deals With | Relevance in This Case |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Section 85 | Cruelty by husband or relatives (replaces old 498-A IPC) | Criminal case filed by wife alleging cruelty |
| Indian Penal Code (Old Law) | Section 498-A | Cruelty against married woman by husband or relatives | Allegation basis for registration of crime |
| Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 | Sections 3 & 4 | Punishment for giving/taking dowry and demanding dowry | Added charges in matrimonial complaint |
| Constitution of India | Article 21 | Right to life and personal liberty | Court held LOC affects personal liberty and livelihood |
| MHA Office Memorandum (22.02.2021) | Sub-para (L) | Guidelines for issuing Look-Out Circulars in exceptional cases | Court examined whether petitioner fit these exceptional categories |
| Criminal Procedure (Bail Jurisprudence) | — | Cooperation with investigation, no NBW pending | Court noted no coercive process was pending |
| Look-Out Circular Guidelines (2017 & 2021) | — | LOC only in exceptional circumstances affecting sovereignty, security, national interest | Court held matrimonial dispute does not qualify as exceptional category |
Case Details
- Case Title: Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. The Union of India and Others
- Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
- Bench: Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2026
- Date of Judgment: 04.02.2026
- Neutral Citation: APHC010037382026
- Petitioner: Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran
- Respondents: The Union of India and Others
- Counsel for Petitioner: G. Seena Kumar
- Counsel for Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India & Government Pleader for Home
Key Takeaways
- Registration of a 498A case does not automatically justify issuing a Look-Out Circular.
- Police cannot mechanically restrict a man’s international travel without examining cooperation or evasion.
- Article 21 protects not just liberty, but livelihood and professional survival.
- Matrimonial disputes are not “grave offences” warranting passport-level restrictions.
- Criminal process cannot be used as silent economic punishment in family disputes.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.