In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled that bail in marital disputes should not be contingent on conditions like mandatory maintenance payments. A bench consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti overturned a Patna High Court order that required the appellant, Srikant Kumar, to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to secure bail.
Case Background
The case originated from allegations of a forced marriage. The appellant, Srikant Kumar, claimed that he was abducted and coerced into marrying the respondent. After the marriage, Mr. Kumar filed for annulment through Matrimonial Suit No. 76 of 2023 in the Family Court at Purnea, Bihar. Meanwhile, the respondent filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The dispute intensified when the Patna High Court, in its order dated July 17, 2023, granted bail to Mr. Kumar with the condition that he pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. The appellant contested this condition, arguing that it exceeded the boundaries of bail provisions.
Key Legal Issues
- Validity of Maintenance as a Bail Condition:
The appellant argued that attaching a maintenance obligation to a bail order was unrelated to the fundamental purpose of bail, which is to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. - Judicial Overreach in Setting Bail Conditions:
The case explored whether imposing such conditions encroached upon the separation of legal matters, particularly since the issue of maintenance was already being addressed in other legal proceedings. - Applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC:
The court examined whether the inclusion of a maintenance condition was consistent with the statutory framework governing anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Supreme Court, in setting aside the maintenance condition, emphasized the limited purpose of bail conditions. It clarified that such conditions should solely aim to ensure the accused’s participation in trial proceedings and must not extend to unrelated matters such as 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 highlighted that bail conditions should not interfere with matters designated for resolution in separate legal forums, such as matrimonial courts. While upholding the bail granted to Mr. Kumar, it directed the trial court to impose only those conditions essential to ensure his attendance during trial proceedings.
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 duly served with notice.