LOCs Against NRI Spouses: Supreme Court and High Court Case Law
What a Look Out Circular is, when it can be issued, and how courts have treated LOCs in matrimonial cases — updated September 2026
A matrimonial dispute gets harder when one spouse lives abroad. A wife who has been deserted worries that her husband will leave India for good before her complaint is heard. A husband abroad worries that an FIR filed in India will get him stopped at the airport, cost him his job overseas, or keep him in India indefinitely. In both situations the Look Out Circular (LOC) often ends up at the centre of the dispute. This article covers what an LOC is, the rules and case law that govern it, and how courts have treated LOCs in matrimonial cases. It is written for both sides.
What is a Look Out Circular?
An LOC is an alert entered into the immigration system by the Bureau of Immigration (BoI), which works under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Once an agency requests one, the BoI flags the named person at every immigration checkpoint.
- Stop the person from leaving India.
- Detain the person or hand them over to the requesting agency.
- Simply inform the agency when the person arrives in or leaves India.
No Act of Parliament creates the LOC. It exists only through executive Office Memorandums of the MHA, first issued in 2010, amended several times, and now consolidated in the Office Memorandum dated 22 February 2021. In Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195), the Bombay High Court described these memorandums as purely executive instructions. An LOC cuts into a fundamental right, so an executive instruction alone cannot justify it. The action taken under it must also pass the tests of Articles 14 and 21.
The Constitutional Basis: Right to Travel Abroad
The Supreme Court has held for decades that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty. Every LOC is tested against this line of cases. Because an LOC restricts a fundamental right, courts insist on specific reasons, proportionality, and periodic review.
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836
"Personal liberty" under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad, and the State cannot take it away without a law.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
Any procedure that restricts this right must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary.
Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048
The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right that feeds a person's independence and self-determination.
Suresh Nanda v. CBI, (2008) 3 SCC 674
Police may seize a passport, but only the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 can impound it.
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1476 (December 2025)
A pending criminal case is not an absolute bar to renewing a passport where the criminal court has permitted renewal. Any restriction on mobility must be proportionate and grounded in statute.
The Supreme Court on Matrimonial Cases Involving NRIs
The Supreme Court has spoken directly to how criminal law should treat spouses living abroad. The same reasoning extends to LOCs — travel restrictions on a spouse abroad must be decided on the facts of each case, not issued automatically.
Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472
Among its directions on Section 498-A cases, the Court said that "in respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India, impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine." It also said outstation family members should ordinarily be exempted from personal appearance or allowed to appear by video conferencing.
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 443
A three-judge bench modified Rajesh Sharma and removed the Family Welfare Committee mechanism. It kept the direction on passports and Red Corner Notices, calling it "protective in nature". It also clarified that exemption from appearance must be sought by application under the relevant provisions of the Code.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51
Arrest is not automatic for offences punishable with up to seven years, which covers Section 498-A IPC and now Section 85 BNS. Police must first issue a notice of appearance under Section 35(3) BNSS. An accused who complies is almost by definition not "evading arrest", which undercuts the usual justification for an LOC.
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599
The Court warned against dragging in distant relatives, including those living abroad, on general and omnibus allegations. These cases are often cited when LOCs are opened against in-laws who live overseas.
When Can an LOC Be Issued?
The leading test comes from the Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 (decided 11 August 2010, Justice S.N. Dhingra), which has been followed across the country.
Three-part test (Sumer Singh Salkan)
- 1The person is accused of a cognisable offence under the IPC/BNS or another penal law.
- 2The person is deliberately evading arrest, or is not appearing before the trial court despite a non-bailable warrant or other coercive process.
- 3There is a real likelihood that the person will leave India to avoid investigation or trial.
The Court also held that the person should be told the reasons for the LOC once it is acted on, and that the LOC can be challenged before the agency or the court.
Points that are often misstated
Who can request it
Only the originating authorities listed in the 2021 memorandum. In a matrimonial FIR this is usually the district Superintendent of Police or an equivalent officer, and courts can also direct issuance. The Bureau of Immigration does not decide whether an LOC is justified — it carries out the request.
How long it lasts
Under the 2010 framework an LOC lapsed after one year unless renewed. That is no longer the rule. Under the current guidelines, an LOC stays in force until the originating agency asks for it to be deleted. Courts now look closely at LOCs that stay open for years with nothing happening in the investigation.
"Economic interests" ground
In Viraj Chetan Shah (April 2024), the Bombay High Court struck down the clause that let public sector bank chiefs request LOCs, and it read down the vague "economic interests of India" ground. Challenges to that judgment have been reported before the Supreme Court. It remains the leading Bombay authority against arbitrary LOCs.
How High Courts Have Applied These Principles in Matrimonial Cases
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. Union of India (4 February 2026, Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy)
The Court quashed an LOC opened against an NRI accused in a Section 498-A case. It held that LOCs cannot be issued mechanically in matrimonial cruelty cases, that an accused who is cooperating keeps his Article 21 right to travel, and that losing an overseas job is irreparable harm.
Delhi High Court
November 2024, Justice Amit Mahajan
The Court quashed an LOC against a couple working in the USA who had come back to India and joined the Section 498-A investigation. It noted that the investigation was over and their presence was no longer needed, and left the State free to act if they stopped cooperating.
Delhi High Court / Calcutta High Court
Rana Ayyub v. Union of India (2022); Mannoj Kumar Jain v. Union of India (2023)
Both are outside the matrimonial context and both are widely relied on. They hold that an LOC needs cogent reasons and must not be used as a tool of harassment.
Across these cases, courts ask the same thing: did the agency apply its mind to specific facts showing evasion or flight risk? If it did not, the LOC is vulnerable.
For the Wife: Seeking an LOC Against a Husband Who Has Fled Abroad
Register a cognisable case first
An LOC needs an underlying FIR, typically under Sections 85/86 BNS (cruelty), Section 80 BNS (dowry death), or the Dowry Prohibition Act. A complaint under the Domestic Violence Act alone is civil in nature and usually cannot support an LOC by itself.
Document evasion, not just the fact that he lives abroad
Record unanswered Section 35(3) notices, ignored summons, any non-bailable warrant, and evidence that he is liquidating assets or planning to settle abroad for good. Courts reject LOCs based on vague fears.
Ask the trial court for coercive process
A non-bailable warrant or a proclamation under Sections 84–85 BNSS makes the case for an LOC much stronger.
Use the institutional channels
The National Commission for Women handles NRI marital complaints, and the Ministry of Women and Child Development has an inter-ministerial mechanism for LOC requests in NRI marriage cases. Neither body issues LOCs itself — they can escalate the request to the originating agency.
Pursue parallel civil remedies
Seek maintenance, residence and custody orders in India. Where possible, get them recognised in the husband's country of residence. An LOC does not produce maintenance on its own.
For the Husband: Challenging or Quashing an LOC
Confirm the LOC exists and find out which agency requested it
People often learn of an LOC only when they are stopped at immigration. Written requests to the investigating agency, or a writ petition asking for disclosure, can establish who requested it and on what grounds.
Test it against Sumer Singh Salkan
Is there a non-bailable warrant? Any recorded evasion? Any real flight risk? If the answer to all three is no, the LOC is open to challenge.
Build a record of cooperation
Reply to every notice, join the investigation (in person or by video where permitted), and show fixed employment and residence abroad. The Supreme Court's direction in Rajesh Sharma against routine restrictions on people living abroad is directly useful here.
File a writ petition under Article 226
File in the jurisdictional High Court, asking for the LOC to be quashed or suspended in the interim. Where the FIR itself is weak, add a petition under Section 528 BNSS relying on Kahkashan Kausar and Preeti Gupta. Courts frequently allow travel on terms such as an undertaking, a surety, or disclosure of the foreign address.
Consider anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS
The law on whether someone abroad can apply is not settled. Some High Courts have held such applications maintainable, relying on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. Others have insisted on the applicant being present in India. Advice has to be tailored to the forum.
Quick Reference
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Legal source | MHA Office Memorandums (consolidated OM of 22.02.2021), not a statute |
| Constitutional test | Article 21 (right to travel abroad) and Article 14: Maneka Gandhi, Satish Chandra Verma |
| Threshold | Cognisable offence plus evasion, non-bailable warrant or real flight risk: Sumer Singh Salkan |
| NRI matrimonial accused | Passport/RCN restrictions "should not be a routine": Rajesh Sharma, retained in Social Action Forum |
| Validity | Stays in force until the originating agency seeks deletion (no automatic one-year lapse) |
| Remedy | Article 226 writ; Section 528 BNSS quashing; conditional permission to travel |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an LOC automatic once a Section 498-A / Section 85 BNS FIR is registered?
No. The Supreme Court's direction that travel restrictions on people living abroad "should not be a routine", together with the Sumer Singh Salkan test, means specific evidence of evasion or flight risk is needed.
Does an LOC expire after one year?
Not under the current guidelines. It stays active until deleted. An LOC left open for a long time without justification can still be quashed.
Can the NCW issue an LOC?
No. It can take up the complaint and push for action, but the request must come from an authorised originating agency, and the Bureau of Immigration enters it.
I was stopped at the airport. What now?
Ask for written confirmation of the LOC and the name of the requesting agency, keep your travel and employment documents in order, and get the matter before the High Court quickly. Courts can grant interim permission to travel on conditions.
Facing an LOC or a Matrimonial FIR?
Aequitas Legis Associates advises on Look Out Circulars, Section 498-A / Section 85 BNS cases, and NRI matrimonial disputes before the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
This article is general legal information on the law as of September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an advocate–client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts and the forum.
← Back to all articles