Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11743
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, JJ
Amer Hussain – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.19037 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: -
For the Respondents: -
The court emphasized adherence to maintenance orders, ruling that failure to comply can lead to enforcement actions like Look Out Circulars, while directing petitioners to seek relief through appropriate legal channels.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Writ Petition seeking to revoke a Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner for non-compliance of maintenance order - The petitioner faced unjust hindrance in employment due to the LOC being issued casually. (Paras 1, 5, 11)
(B) Maintenance - Orders concerning maintenance payments must be adhered to by the liable party - The failure to comply leads to further legal actions which may complicate matters. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-husband seeks relief from an LOC issued after a family court ordered maintenance payments. Failure to pay led to enforcement actions against the petitioner, affecting his employment opportunities abroad.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the LOC was issued without due process and directed the petitioner to pay outstanding maintenance before seeking to revoke the LOC.
Issues: The main issues pertained to the legitimacy of the LOC in light of unpaid maintenance and whether the court should intervene under Article 226 given the petitioner's alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must fulfill maintenance obligations and can pursue the revocation of the LOC through family court processes, dismissing the petition based on the availability of alternate legal remedies.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petition seeks judicial review of an administrative action concerning a look out circular. (Para 2) |
| 2. disputes over maintenance obligations lead to coercive measures impacting employment and familial wellbeing. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. the issuance of the loc without following due process creates significant barriers for the petitioner. (Para 7) |
| 4. the court encourages utilizing available legal remedies to address ongoing issues. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. the court concludes the writ petition with directions for the petitioner to seek proper relief. (Para 11) |
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , is filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not closing the LOC issued against the petitioner vide LOC.No.2025/10422/001729 dated 13.03.2025 in spite of bring to the respondents notice through representation, dated 06.06.2023 which was served on respondents, dated 11.06.2025 and 13.06.2025 stating that I have appeared before the concerned Court and obtained bail and the purpose of continuing the LOC is not correct and due to which it is causing hindrance to me to go to abroad for my employment purpose to eke my livelihood, consequently declare the action of 2nd and 3rd respondent in issuing Look Out Circular casually and in routine manner against me in connection with Crl.M.P.No.120 of 2024 in M.C.No.59 of 2022 on the file of 4th respondent pursuant to the petition filed by the 6th respondent U/s 125 (3) of CRPC without following due process of law and also violation of Principles of natural justice and also violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 14 , 19, 21 of the constitution of India, consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to send a request to the 5th respondent to Revoke/cancel the coercive action of the Lookout Circular pending against the petitioner intimate the 5th respondent authority that the coercive action of LOC has been revoked against the petitioner for all purposes…”
2. The petitioner is husband of respondent No.6 and their marriage was solemnized on 07.11.2015 at Hyderabad. During their lawful wedlock they were blessed with three children. Thereafter disputes arose between the petitioner- husband and respondent No.6-wife, resulting in respondent No.6 filing criminal case, Maintenance Case and Domestic Violence Case against the petitioner. The children are in the custody of respondent No.6-wife.
3. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-
husband. Respondent No.6-wife filed M.C.No.59 of 2022 on the file of learned Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to herself and Rs.15,000/- each to the three children, totaling to Rs.75,000/-. After considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Judge, vide order, dated 21.12.2023, partly allowed the petition directing “the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.6,000/- per month each to the children totaling Rs.26,000/- towards their maintenance from the date of filing of the said petition. The learned Judge also directed the petitioner shall pay the arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition i.e., within two (2) months from the date of the said order and shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance to respondent No.6 on or before 5th of every succeeding month, from the month of December, 2023.”
4. It appears from the record that no appeal is preferred against the order passed in Maintenance Case and the order passed in M.C.No.59 of 2022 has become final. 5. However, respondent No.6-wife filed Crl.M.P.No.120 of 2024 in M.C.No.59 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru complex, Hyderaba
