Family Court Has No Power to Issue Lookout Circulars

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mohammed Azeem v. Sabeeha & Others (2025) held that a Family Court has no power to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) while executing an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which relates to maintenance for wives, children and parents. 

What was the Background of Mohammed Azeem v. Sabeeha & Others (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner, Mohammed Azeem, challenged an order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru. 
• The Family Court had allowed the wife's application and issued a Look Out Circular against the husband for non-compliance with a maintenance order. 
• The petitioner contended that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to issue an LOC while executing a maintenance order. 
• The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021), which held that coercive enforcement measures for non-payment of maintenance should be resorted to only as a last measure when default is found to be wilful and contumacious. 
• The respondent-wife's counsel argued that once a maintenance order is passed, it is the duty of the husband to comply with it, and since the petitioner was residing outside the country and had failed to comply, the Family Court had no other option but to issue the LOC. 
• The Court noted that it had become a practice for officers who requested issuance of LOCs to take no steps to close them, even when court orders directed suspension of such circulars. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions and held that the Family Court had no authority to issue a Look Out Circular while executing an order passed under Section 125 CrPC. 
• Justice Kanneganti observed that maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC create a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders, and if a party defaults, the remedy available is execution through attachment of property, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or civil imprisonment. 
• The Court clarified that Look Out Circulars are intended to prevent accused persons or offenders from evading the criminal process, and cannot be issued for recovery of maintenance dues. 
• The Court observed that continuing an LOC despite a court order amounts to illegality and contempt of court, and also violates the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions to all concerned authorities, ensuring that whenever a court suspends an LOC, the same is promptly communicated to the Bureau of Immigration. 
• The Court directed that responsibility be fixed on the officer who requested issuance of the LOC, failing which departmental action must be initiated, observing that otherwise there would be no sanctity to court orders. 
• The Court also directed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the order to all courts dealing with proceedings and execution under Section 125 CrPC, clarifying that Look Out Circulars cannot be issued in such cases. 
• Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Family Court. 

What is Section 125 of CrPC/144 of BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is a social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution and financial hardship of a neglected spouse and children. It empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to grant monthly maintenance, interim maintenance, and proceeding expenses to the wife, legitimate or illegitimate child, who is unable to maintain themselves, from a person who has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to do so. 

Key statutory Features: 

• Section 144(1): Empowers the Magistrate to order monthly maintenance to wife and children. 
• Second Proviso to Section 144(1): Allows the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance and expenses during the pendency of proceedings. 
• Third Proviso to Section 144(1): Directs that interim maintenance applications should ideally be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice. 
• Section 144(2): Maintenance may be payable either from the date of application or order, as the Magistrate deems fit. 
• Section 144(3): Non-payment of maintenance can attract warrant proceedings and imprisonment up to one month. 
• Section 144(4): Disqualifies the wife from receiving maintenance in cases of adultery, refusal to live with husband without sufficient cause, or mutual consent to live separately. 
• Further procedural clarity is offered under Section 145(2), which mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the respondent or their advocate, with a provision for ex parte proceedings and setting aside such orders upon showing sufficient cause within three months.