Mechanical Issuance of LOCs in Matrimonial Cases Violates Fundamental Rights: Andhra Pradesh HC

In a recent ruling that reinforces the constitutional protections afforded to personal liberty and the freedom of movement, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against an expatriate worker. The decision serves as a significant rebuke to the growing trend of using travel bans as a routine tool in matrimonial litigation.

The Balancing Act: Personal Liberty vs. Procedural Compliance

The petitioner, an electrical technician employed in Dubai, found himself at the center of a legal standoff after his wife initiated cases under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 498-A IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Despite the petitioner’s consistent cooperation with the investigating agency and his regular return to India for court appearances, he was apprehended at the Visakhapatnam airport. An LOC, issued without prior notice, prevented him from returning to his job in the United Arab Emirates. The petitioner argued that this restraint was not only arbitrary but posed an immediate threat to his livelihood, risking the loss of his employment.

Mechanical Issuance of LOCs: A Constitutional Concern

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the issuance of an LOC is a "coercive measure" that directly impinges on an individual's fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court expressed concern over the "mechanical manner" in which police authorities are increasingly using LOCs in matrimonial disputes without assessing whether the accused is genuinely evading judicial process or fleeing the jurisdiction.

Drawing upon precedents such as Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and Mannoj Kumar Jain v. Union of India , the Court underscored that an LOC is an exceptional tool reserved for cases where an individual's departure would be detrimental to national sovereignty, security, or India’s economic interests.

Court’s Stance on Matrimonial Litigations

The judgment clarified that mere registration of a case under matrimonial laws is insufficient justification for an LOC. Justice Sreenivasa Reddy highlighted the reality that such cases are often protracted and personal, and utilizing travel restrictions in this context disproportionately affects the career and liberty of the accused without serving a larger public interest.

"It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities or the offences which are against the Society... In most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open LOC," the Court noted.

Key Observations

• "An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement."
• "Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, it has become common for the respondent/police... to open the LOCs in mechanical manner."
• "By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect his career."

Final Verdict and Implications

Ultimately, the High Court ruled that the continuation of the LOC against the petitioner was unwarranted. By quashing the circular, the Court has provided relief to the petitioner, allowing him to resume his employment in Dubai.

This judgment acts as a vital reminder to investigative agencies that the power to restrict travel must be exercised with extreme caution and proportionality. For legal professionals and citizens alike, it affirms that constitutional protections against arbitrary detention extend even to the borders of the nation, mandating that the state must provide cogent evidence of evasion rather than relying on standard bureaucratic procedures that infringe upon fundamental mobility.

---

Case Reference: Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran vs The Union of India, WP 2269/2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.