Karnataka Hc Look Out Circular Adult Travel Rights Custody Dispute

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that an adult cannot be considered to be in the custody of their parents or be subjected to matrimonial disputes between them, and is entitled to exercise the fundamental right to travel independently under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On July 1, Justice Suraj Govindaraj also directed the Bureau of Immigration to strike off the travel restrictions and Look Out Circular issued in 2006 in a matrimonial case between the parents of Anurag Seth, 30.

In 2024, when the petitioner sought to travel abroad, he was informed that he could not do so because a Look Out Circular issued in his name, based on a March 17, 2006, order of a family court in Madhya Pradesh’s Indore, was still in force.

Anurag’s father filed an application in the family court during the divorce proceedings between him and his wife, seeking to restrain the mother from removing the children out of India, pending the proceedings.

The family court passed an interlocutory order restraining the respondent, mother, from taking the minor children abroad, or sending them abroad through any other person, without its permission until the final disposal of the case. Based on this order, a Look Out Circular was issued in 2006 and has remained in force.

The petitioner argued that a restriction imposed on him as a minor during a custody dispute could not continue after he attained adulthood. He further submitted that since he had become an adult nearly 14 years ago, the Look Out Circular should have been withdrawn or cancelled.

The Karnataka High Court observed that the family court’s order ceased to have effect once the petitioner attained majority, and that, as an adult, he could no longer be subjected to a custody dispute between his parents.

“The interlocutory order passed in the custody battle and the aspect of travel of the petitioner on attaining majority cannot be conflated. They stand on completely distinct footing,” the bench said.

The bench also took note of the family court order, which was apprised that the children had attained majority. Based on this, the father was discharged from the children’s protective custody, and the original application was disposed of in 2023.

“Though there can be no fault found at that time not to cancel the Look Out Circular, once it was brought to the notice of the respondents, it was required of the respondents to cancel the Look Out Circular. The same not having been done, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner would have to succeed and necessary orders would be passed in favour of the petitioner,” the bench said.