Payment of Maintenance Can't Be a Condition for Granting Bail in Matrimonial Cases: SC

Post By 24law
January 16, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, held that conditions for granting bail, particularly in marital disputes, cannot include payment of maintenance to the spouse. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, set aside a condition imposed by the Patna High Court that linked anticipatory bail to the husband’s obligation to pay maintenance to his wife.

The Case in Brief

The case arose when the appellant-husband, Srikant Kumar, approached the Supreme Court after being granted anticipatory bail by the Patna High Court in a case involving allegations under Sections 498(A), 504, 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While granting bail, the High Court imposed a condition requiring the husband to deposit Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, failing which the bail could be canceled.

The appellant’s counsel, Advocate Fauzia Shakil, argued that the High Court’s condition was inappropriate and legally unsustainable, especially since the marriage itself was contested. The appellant claimed he was forced into the marriage and had already initiated proceedings for annulment before the Family Court in Purnea. The appellant also argued that maintenance obligations should be decided by the appropriate forum and not as a precondition for bail.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court emphasized the legal framework governing bail conditions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The bench clarified that the primary purpose of bail conditions is to ensure that the accused remains available for trial and does not flee from justice. Conditions that are unrelated to these objectives should not be imposed.

“When an application for bail is filed, the Court is required to impose such bail conditions which would ensure that the appellant does not flee from justice and is available to face trial. Imposing conditions which are irrelevant for the exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not, therefore, be warranted,” the bench observed.

The Court referred to the precedent set in Munish Bhasin & Others v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 4 SCC 45, where it was held that bail conditions must align with the principles of criminal jurisprudence and should not overreach into matters unrelated to the case at hand.

High Court’s Condition Set Aside

The Supreme Court quashed the Patna High Court’s order requiring the husband to pay monthly maintenance as a precondition for anticipatory bail. The bench held that such a condition was unwarranted and beyond the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction in a bail matter. However, the Court made it clear that the appellant must cooperate with the trial and adhere to other standard bail conditions that the trial court may impose.

Legal Principles Reaffirmed

This judgment reinforces the principle that bail conditions must serve the purpose of ensuring justice rather than imposing extraneous obligations on the accused. It also delineates the boundaries of judicial discretion in bail matters, particularly in cases involving matrimonial disputes.

The Court noted that maintenance claims and other marital obligations are distinct legal issues governed by separate provisions, such as Section 125 of the CrPC. Addressing such claims within the framework of a bail order could lead to a conflation of distinct legal remedies, which is impermissible.

Background of the Dispute

The case has its roots in allegations of a forced marriage. According to the appellant, he was abducted and compelled to participate in a marriage ceremony under duress. He subsequently filed a matrimonial suit seeking annulment of the marriage and contested the maintenance claims raised by the wife.

While the complainant-wife did not appear before the Supreme Court, the state counsel defended the High Court’s condition, arguing that it was imposed following the appellant’s offer to pay maintenance. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that an offer made during proceedings cannot form the basis for an inappropriate legal condition.

Cause Title: SRIKANT KUMAR @ SHRIKANT KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.