The Karnataka High Court has ruled that Family Courts have no authority to issue Lookout Circulars to enforce maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC. Such action is illegal, violates personal liberty, and amounts to contempt of court.
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has delivered an important ruling clarifying the limits of power of Family Courts while enforcing maintenance orders. The Court has categorically held that a Family Court does not have the authority 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.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti explained that an order of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC creates a civil obligation. This obligation can be enforced only through the mechanisms provided in law. If a person fails to comply with a maintenance order, the remedies available to the court include execution of the order by attachment of property, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or civil imprisonment. The Court made it clear that a Look Out Circular is not one of the legally permissible tools for recovery of maintenance dues.
The High Court emphasised that Look Out Circulars are meant to prevent accused persons or offenders from evading the criminal justice process. They are not recovery mechanisms for enforcing civil liabilities such as maintenance. Using an LOC for this purpose goes beyond the jurisdiction of a Family Court.
The Court further observed that continuing a Look Out Circular despite a court order amounts to illegality and contempt of court. It also violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The case arose from a petition filed by Mohammed Azeem, who challenged an order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru. By that order, the Family Court had allowed an application filed by the wife and issued a Look Out Circular against the husband in proceedings relating to execution of a maintenance order.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to issue an LOC while executing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324], where the Supreme Court held that coercive enforcement measures for non-payment of maintenance, including striking off the defence, can be taken only as a last resort and only when the default is found to be wilful and contumacious.
It was contended that the statutory scheme under Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 421 CrPC provides a complete mechanism for enforcement of maintenance orders, such as recovery by attachment and sale of property. There is no provision in law that permits issuance of a Look Out Circular in such cases.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent-wife submitted that once a maintenance order is passed, it is the duty of the husband to comply with it. It was argued that the petitioner was residing outside India and had failed to comply with the maintenance order, leaving the Family Court with no option but to issue a Look Out Circular to secure compliance.
After hearing both sides, the High Court found merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The Court held that the Family Court had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a Look Out Circular while executing an order passed under Section 125 CrPC. The Court reiterated that maintenance orders are civil in nature and cannot be enforced through criminal law measures meant for accused persons.
The High Court also took serious note of the manner in which Look Out Circulars continue to remain active despite court orders suspending or setting them aside. It observed that when a court passes an order suspending an LOC, it is the duty of the authority that requested the LOC to immediately communicate the order and ensure its withdrawal. The Court noted that, in practice, officers often fail to take timely steps to close LOCs even after clear judicial directions.
To address this issue, the Court directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions to all concerned authorities. These instructions must ensure that whenever a court suspends a Look Out Circular, the same is promptly communicated to the Bureau of Immigration.
The Court further directed that responsibility must be fixed on the officer who requested issuance of the LOC, and if there is any failure to act diligently, departmental action must be initiated. The Court warned that without such accountability, there would be no sanctity to court orders.
The Court also directed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the judgment to all courts dealing with proceedings and execution under Section 125 CrPC, clearly informing them that Look Out Circulars cannot be issued in such cases.
Allowing the writ petition, the Karnataka High Court set aside the order passed by the Family Court, Mangaluru, and reaffirmed that enforcement of maintenance orders must strictly follow the procedure laid down by law and cannot violate fundamental rights.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Referred in the Case
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How the Court Interpreted It |
| Section 125 CrPC | Provides maintenance to wife, children, and parents | Creates a civil obligation, not a criminal liability |
| Section 125(3) CrPC | Enforcement of maintenance orders | Allows recovery through warrant for levying amount, not LOC |
| Section 421 CrPC | Mode of recovery of fine | Permits attachment and sale of property, not arrest or detention |
| Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Right to life and personal liberty | Continuing an LOC violates personal liberty |
| Look Out Circular (LOC) | Prevents accused/offenders from evading criminal process | Cannot be used for recovery of maintenance dues |
| Supreme Court Judgment | Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh v. Neha | Coercive measures only as a last resort and only for wilful default |
| Contempt of Court Principle | Ensures compliance with judicial orders | Continuing LOC despite court order amounts to contempt |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Mohammed Azeem vs Mrs. Sabeeha & Ors.
- Court: Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru
- Bench: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti
- Date of Judgment: 22 September 2025
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 22223 of 2025 (GM-FC)
- Neutral Citation: NC: 2025:KHC:38390
- Counsels Appearing
- For the Petitioner (Husband): Sri K. Ravishankar, Advocate
- For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Wife & Children): Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate
- For Respondent No. 4 (State): Sri Neelakantappa K, HCGP
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance is a civil liability, not a criminal offence, and courts cannot treat husbands like absconding criminals for non-payment of dues.
- Family Courts have no legal power to issue Look Out Circulars while executing maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC.
- Using LOCs for maintenance recovery is an abuse of process and a direct violation of Article 21 and personal liberty of men.
- Law already provides remedies like attachment of property and civil imprisonment; illegal shortcuts cannot replace due process.
- Officers who misuse or continue LOCs despite court orders must be held personally accountable to stop harassment of men through the legal system.
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.
What if the husband has sold all his property, addicted to bad habits like betting, drinking alcohol etc. what the wife and children should do?
Even in such cases, law does not permit criminal shortcuts. The wife and children have civil remedies—maintenance proceedings, attachment of proven assets, recovery under CrPC/CPC, or welfare schemes.
What is not allowed is converting poverty or bad habits into illegal arrest, LOCs, or coercive criminal action.
Hard cases cannot justify unconstitutional methods. Rule of law must apply equally.
While pointing out the mistake, it will be good & great relief if the authorities take note of the matter & rectify the lapses & take actions needed apart from simply pointing out the lapses without any relief to the sufferer.
Agreed. Declaring the law is meaningless unless authorities stop acting without jurisdiction. Maintenance is a civil liability, it cannot be enforced through LOCs or criminal coercion. Continued misuse violates Article 21.
Accountability and corrective action are the real relief, not mere observations.