File photo of the Karnataka High Court.
While keeping in abeyance a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against an estranged husband who was stopped from travelling out of India for employment, the Karnataka High Court recently said that an executive measure cannot be allowed to operate in a manner that results in the ‘civil death’ of an individual by completely extinguishing his right to livelihood.
In an order dated April 30, which was made available recently, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “The mere pendency of a criminal case, particularly one emanating from matrimonial discord, cannot ipso facto justify an absolute embargo on the petitioner’s right to travel abroad.”
The estranged couple had married in 2011, and even before the marriage, the husband was employed in Qatar. Due to matrimonial discord, the woman lodged a complaint under Section 498-A and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code at the Udupi Mahila Police Station in 2022.
Following this, the police issued an LOC against the husband, who was intercepted and arrested at the airport upon his arrival in India the same year. In his petition, the husband argued that the LOC has the effect of completely disabling him from travelling abroad, thereby jeopardising his employment and livelihood.
Justice Magadum noted that the dispute between the parties is essentially matrimonial in nature, albeit that it has taken the colour of criminal proceedings. Emphasising that the alleged offences are undoubtedly serious, the bench in the order said: “It is equally trite that proceedings arising out of marital discord cannot be permitted to degenerate into instruments of disproportionate restraint, particularly where such restraint impinges upon fundamental rights.”
Stating that the right to travel abroad has been recognised as an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court said, “…in cases where employment is situated overseas, any restriction imposed by the State must satisfy the test of proportionality.”
Observing that the husband has neither absconded from the process of law nor has shown any inclination to evade trial, the bench opined, “Criminal law, especially in the context of matrimonial disputes, should not be employed as a means of economic strangulation.”
Accordingly, the bench held “Continuance of the Look Out Circular, without providing a mechanism for the petitioner to pursue his employment, is disproportionate and warrants interference.”
The bench then directed respondents to permit the petitioner to travel abroad for the purpose of resuming his employment and directed the husband to provide an undertaking giving details of his place of employment and stating that he would attend court hearings.
