In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that bail in marital disputes should not be dependent on conditions such as mandatory maintenance payments. A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside a Patna High Court order that mandated the appellant, Srikant Kumar, to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to obtain bail.
Case Background
The case stemmed from allegations of a forced marriage, with the appellant, Srikant Kumar, asserting that he was abducted and compelled to marry the respondent. Following the marriage, Mr. Kumar initiated annulment proceedings through Matrimonial Suit No. 76 of 2023 in the Family Court at Purnea, Bihar. Concurrently, the respondent filed a maintenance petition 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. Mr. Kumar challenged this condition, arguing that it exceeded the scope of bail provisions.
Key Legal Issues
- Validity of Maintenance as a Bail Condition
The appellant contended that linking a maintenance obligation to a bail order was unrelated to the primary objective of bail, which is to ensure the accused’s appearance during trial. - Judicial Overreach in Setting Bail Conditions
The case questioned whether imposing such conditions constituted judicial overreach, particularly since the issue of maintenance was already being addressed in separate legal proceedings. - Applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC
The court deliberated on whether attaching a maintenance condition aligned with the statutory framework governing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Supreme Court, while striking down the maintenance condition, underscored the narrow scope of bail conditions. It stated that bail conditions should be confined to ensuring the accused’s presence during trial and should not extend to 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 should not encroach upon matters reserved for resolution in other legal forums, such as matrimonial courts. While affirming the bail granted to Mr. Kumar, it instructed the trial court to impose only those conditions necessary to secure his presence 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.
