Mohammed Azeem AND Sabeeha & Others, 2026
It ensures protection of fundamental rights under Article 21, even while enforcing statutory civil obligations.
Judgement Details
Court
Karnataka High Court
Date of Decision
6 January 2026
Judges
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Petitioner Mohammed Azeem challenged a Family Court order issuing a Look Out Circular (LOC) against him while executing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC.
-
Family Court had issued the LOC based on non-compliance of maintenance dues, as the petitioner resided outside the country.
-
Petitioner contended:
-
Family Court lacked jurisdiction to issue LOCs.
-
Coercive enforcement measures for maintenance are limited and should be used only for wilful default, per Rajnesh v. Neha.
-
-
Respondent-wife argued that the husband’s non-compliance left the Court with no option but to issue LOC.
-
High Court examined the nature of LOCs, noting they are intended for criminal offenders evading the law, not for civil enforcement of maintenance orders.
-
Court further noted procedural lapses where suspended LOCs were not promptly withdrawn by authorities.
Issues
-
Whether a Family Court has the power to issue a Look Out Circular while executing an order under Section 125 CrPC?
-
Whether issuing an LOC for non-payment of maintenance violates Article 21 rights of the husband?
-
Whether authorities are obliged to immediately withdraw an LOC when ordered by the court?
Held
-
Family Court cannot issue LOCs for enforcement of maintenance orders.
-
LOCs are meant for criminal processes, not civil obligations.
-
Authorities must ensure compliance with court orders regarding suspension or withdrawal of LOCs.
-
Petitioner’s Article 21 rights upheld, preventing undue restriction on personal liberty.
Analysis
-
Reinforces distinction between civil enforcement (maintenance orders) and criminal law tools (LOCs).
-
Ensures protection of fundamental rights under Article 21, even while enforcing statutory civil obligations.
-
Provides procedural safeguards: Authorities must promptly act on suspension orders, or face accountability.
-
Aligns with Supreme Court principle in Rajnesh v. Neha, limiting coercive enforcement measures to wilful defaults only.
-
Strengthens judicial clarity on jurisdiction of Family Courts vis-à-vis criminal enforcement tools.