Family Courts Lacks Jurisdiction to Issue LOC: Says Karnataka High
Court
Mohammed Azeem v. Sabeeha & Others [Writ Petition No.22223 of 2025 (GM FC)]
AURTHOR ADV. BIJAL KANTILAL GOGRI (PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE)

Introduction
The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Mohammed Azeem v. Sabeeha & others marks an important clarification on the scope of enforcement powers available to Family Courts in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). The Court decisively held that a Family Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a Look Out Circular (“LOC”) while executing a maintenance order. This ruling, delivered by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, has significant implications for maintenance jurisprudence, enforcement practices, and the protection of personal liberty.
The judgment reiterates that enforcement mechanisms must be strictly grounded in statutory authority and must conform to constitutional guarantees, particularly the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By prohibiting the use of immigration control measures in maintenance enforcement, the Court reaffirmed the welfare-oriented and non-punitive character of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Mr. Mohammed Azeem, approached the Karnataka High Court by way of a writ petition challenging an order dated 30 October 2024 passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Mangaluru. By the impugned order, the Family Court had allowed an application filed by the respondent-wife, Mrs. Sabeeha, and directed the issuance of a Look Out Circular against the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance with a maintenance order passed under Section 125 CrPC.
The respondent-wife alleged that the petitioner was deliberately evading payment of maintenance by residing outside India. Accepting this contention, the Family Court resorted to the issuance of an LOC to restrain the petitioner from leaving the country and to compel compliance with the maintenance order. The petitioner challenged this order on the ground that the CrPC does not vest Family Courts with the power to issue Look Out Circulars in maintenance proceedings.
Issues for Determination
The High Court was called upon to determine the following issues:
Whether a Family Court, while executing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC, possesses statutory authority to issue a Look Out Circular.
. Whether maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are civil or criminal in nature, and whether they justify coercive measures such as immigration restraints.
. Whether the issuance and continuation of a Look Out Circular in such circumstances violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments Advanced by the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that Section 125 CrPC creates a quasi-civil obligation intended to ensure financial support and social justice, and that the statute exhaustively provides the modes of enforcement in cases of default. It was argued that the permissible remedies include issuance of warrants for levying the amount due, attachment of property, and civil imprisonment in cases of wilful default, but do not extend to executive measures such as Look Out Circulars. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, which emphasises that coercive enforcement measures must be proportionate, resorted to as a last measure, and strictly confined to statutory authority. The petitioner further submitted that issuance of an LOC transforms a compensatory civil obligation into a punitive restraint and results in an unconstitutional curtailment of personal liberty and the right to travel abroad.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent-wife justified the issuance of the Look Out Circular on the ground that the petitioner was deliberately evading compliance with the maintenance order by residing abroad. It was submitted that the extraordinary step of issuing an LOC was necessary to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to ensure effective enforcement of the maintenance order. The respondent contended that the Family Court acted in the interest of justice and exercised inherent powers to secure compliance. The State, while acknowledging the absence of express statutory authority for issuing an LOC in maintenance cases, emphasised the practical necessity of such measures to enforce court orders.
Judgment and Legal Reasoning of the High Court
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and unequivocally held that a Family Court has no jurisdiction or statutory authority to issue a Look Out Circular while executing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The Court began its analysis by undertaking a textual and purposive interpretation of Section 125 and held that the provision constitutes a complete and self-contained code with respect to both the grant and enforcement of maintenance.
The Court observed that the CrPC explicitly enumerates the modes of enforcement available in cases of default, including issuance of warrants for levying the amount due, attachment of property, and civil imprisonment. The Court categorically held that these remedies do not include or imply the power to issue a Look Out Circular. It was further held that an LOC is an executive instrument rooted in criminal law, ordinarily employed to prevent accused persons involved in cognisable offences from evading the criminal justice system. The Court clarified that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are welfare-oriented and compensatory in nature, and not punitive. Consequently, coercive criminal-law mechanisms such as immigration restraints cannot be imported into maintenance enforcement in the absence of express legislative sanction. Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reiterated that enforcement measures must be proportionate, structured, and strictly within the bounds of statutory authority.
From a constitutional perspective, the Court held that issuance or continuation of a Look Out Circular without statutory backing constitutes a direct infringement of the right to personal liberty and the right to travel abroad, both of which are integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that executive action cannot curtail personal liberty unless authorised by law.
Conclusion
The judgment in Mohammed Azeem v. Sabecha & Others provides a definitive clarification on the limits of judicial and executive power in maintenance enforcement proceedings. By holding that Family Courts lack authority to issue Look Out Circulars, the Karnataka High Court reinforced the principle that maintenance obligations under Section 125 CrPC are civil in nature and must be enforced strictly through statutorily sanctioned means. The ruling robustly protects personal liberty, curbs jurisdictional overreach, and strengthens the constitutional framework governing family law enforcement. The decision is likely to serve as an authoritative precedent in future cases concerning maintenance enforcement and the permissible scope of judicial authority.