In a significant legal ruling, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that family courts do not possess the authority to issue look out circulars against individuals for executing maintenance orders. This judgment marks an important limitation on the powers of family courts in enforcement matters.
Court's Jurisdictional Limitations Defined
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti delivered the landmark verdict on November 13, 2025, stating unequivocally that issuing look out circulars falls beyond the jurisdiction granted to family courts when executing orders under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court emphasized that such powers are not conferred upon family courts by existing legislation.
The ruling came during a case where a family court had attempted to use look out circulars as a mechanism to enforce maintenance payments. Look out circulars are typically used by immigration authorities to prevent individuals from leaving the country when there are pending legal cases or investigations against them.
Legal Framework and Implications
Justice Kanneganti's judgment provides crucial clarity on the separation of powers between different judicial forums. The court explained that while family courts have authority over maintenance matters, the specific tool of look out circulars remains outside their purview when dealing with execution of maintenance orders.
The decision underscores that enforcement mechanisms must align with the statutory powers granted to each judicial body. Family courts, established primarily to resolve family disputes quickly and efficiently, cannot employ the same enforcement tools as criminal courts or investigation agencies.
Impact on Maintenance Cases
This ruling is expected to have substantial implications for how maintenance cases are handled across Karnataka. Individuals seeking to enforce maintenance orders through family courts will need to explore alternative legal remedies rather than relying on look out circulars to compel compliance.
The judgment reinforces the principle that legal procedures must follow established jurisdictional boundaries, even when dealing with sensitive family matters like maintenance. Legal experts anticipate that this clarification will lead to more precise enforcement strategies in family law cases.
While the decision limits one enforcement tool, it simultaneously protects individuals from potentially excessive measures in civil maintenance disputes. The court's position maintains a balance between ensuring compliance with maintenance orders and preventing the misuse of powerful legal instruments like look out circulars in family law matters.
