A quiet but firm message came out of Court Hall No. 1 at the Karnataka High Court this week. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti made it clear that Family Courts cannot stretch their powers while enforcing maintenance orders. Issuing a Look-Out Circular (LOC), the court said, is simply not one of the tools available for recovering unpaid maintenance.
Background
The case was brought by Mohammed Azeem, a 53-year-old man working in Kuwait, who challenged an order of the Family Court in Mangaluru. The Family Court, dealing with a long-pending maintenance dispute, had issued a Look-Out Circular against him in October 2024 after arrears remained unpaid.
Read also:- Unnao Rape Case Reaches Supreme Court Again as Plea Challenges Delhi High Court’s Suspension of Kuldeep Sengar's Life Sentence
Azeem’s counsel argued that while the husband may have defaulted on maintenance, the Family Court crossed a line by invoking an LOC—normally used in criminal cases to stop accused persons from fleeing the country. The court was reminded that the Criminal Procedure Code already lays down specific methods for recovering maintenance dues, like attaching property or, in some cases, civil imprisonment.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kanneganti did not mince words. The bench observed that “maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC is a civil obligation, enforced through judicial process, not by treating the defaulter like a criminal offender.”
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Rules MSTC Can Recover Gratuity Losses Under CDA Rules, Sets Aside Single Judge Order in Senior CMD Dispute
The court noted that the Family Court had already used lawful means earlier by ordering attachment and sale of property to recover dues. Going a step further and issuing an LOC, the High Court said, was beyond jurisdiction. “Look-out circulars are meant to prevent accused persons from evading criminal proceedings. They cannot be used as pressure tactics to recover maintenance,” the bench remarked.
There was also sharp criticism of how the LOC continued despite the High Court staying it earlier. The judge observed that ignoring a court’s suspension order not only violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution but may also amount to contempt of court. The court expressed concern that such lapses are becoming routine, which, in its words, erodes the sanctity of judicial orders.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court dismisses accused's revision plea, reiterates no challenge lies against magistrate's FIR order under Section 156(3) CrPC
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order issuing the Look-Out Circular. It directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police and to all courts handling maintenance execution cases, clearly stating that LOCs cannot be issued for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. All pending applications were closed with this order.
Case Title: Mohammed Azeem v. Mrs. Sabeeha & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 22223 of 2025 (GM-FC)
Case Type: Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India (Family Court / Maintenance Execution)
Decision Date: 22 September 2025
