In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that bail in marital disputes should not be subject to conditions such as mandatory maintenance payments. The bench, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, set aside a Patna High Court order that had imposed a ₹4,000 monthly maintenance payment as a prerequisite for granting bail to the appellant, Srikant Kumar.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from allegations of a forced marriage. The appellant, Srikant Kumar, alleged that he had been abducted and compelled into a marriage with respondent. Following the marriage, Mr. Kumar filed for annulment in Matrimonial Suit No. 76 of 2023 before the Family Court in Purnea, Bihar. Concurrently, the respondent sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The dispute escalated when the Patna High Court, in its order dated July 17, 2023, granted bail to Mr. Kumar on the condition that he pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. The appellant challenged the condition, contending that it overstepped the scope of bail provisions.
Key Legal Issues
1. Appropriateness of Maintenance as a Bail Condition:
The appellant argued that imposing maintenance through a bail order was unrelated to the purpose of bail, which is to secure the accused’s presence at trial.
2. Judicial Overreach in Bail Conditions:
The case examined whether such conditions infringed upon the separation of legal issues, especially when the matter of maintenance was already pending in other legal forums.
3. Scope of Section 438 of the CrPC:
The court considered whether the maintenance condition aligned with the statutory framework of anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court, while quashing the maintenance condition, underscored the limited scope of bail conditions. It stated that such conditions must be relevant to ensuring the accused’s compliance with trial proceedings and should not address unrelated issues like maintenance disputes.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed, “Imposing conditions irrelevant to ensuring the accused’s presence at trial dilutes the legal framework governing bail and risks overstepping judicial authority.”
The court emphasized that bail conditions must not encroach upon issues reserved for adjudication in separate legal forums, such as matrimonial courts. It upheld the bail granted to Mr. Kumar but directed the trial court to impose only conditions necessary to secure his presence during trial.
Representation
– For the Appellant (Srikant Kumar): Advocate-on-Record Ms. Fauzia Shakil.
– For the State of Bihar: Advocate Mr. Anshul Narayan and Advocate-on-Record Mr. Prem Prakash.
– For the Respondent : The respondent did not appear despite being served notice.
