In a case concerning matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court of India has recently quashed a bail condition that required the husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife as a precondition for receiving anticipatory bail. This decision has set a precedent in matters where bail conditions are deemed irrelevant to the criminal case at hand.
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute, wherein the appellant, Sri Krant Kumar, faced allegations under Sections 498A, 504, 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant approached the Supreme Court after the Patna High Court, while granting anticipatory bail, imposed a condition that he must pay Rs. 4,000 per month to the respondent, his wife, as maintenance. The High Court also directed that failure to make these payments for two consecutive months could lead to the cancellation of the bail bond.
The appellant, represented by counsel Ms. Fauzia Shakil, argued that the marriage was a result of coercion, and proceedings for annulment were already underway before the Family Court in Purnea. She contended that imposing maintenance as a condition for bail was inappropriate and unwarranted. Ms. Shakil emphasized that such a condition did not align with the principles governing anticipatory bail, which should primarily ensure that the appellant remains available for trial.
The state counsel, Mr. Anshul Narayan, responded by stating that the bail condition was introduced only after the appellant himself offered to provide maintenance, a submission that was recorded by the High Court in its order.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 6, 2025, held that the imposition of the maintenance condition was unjustified. The bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti observed that “When 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 exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not therefore be warranted.”
The apex court further clarified that while the appellant remains obligated to face the trial, the imposition of maintenance as part of the bail conditions was not warranted. The Court directed that the trial court should impose appropriate bail conditions to ensure the appellant’s availability during the trial. The order explicitly stated, "However, appellant is bound to remain available and face the trial as required by law. The learned Trial Court should therefore impose appropriate bail condition(s) to facilitate the appellant to remain on bail, while availing bail under the impugned order dated 17.07.2023."
Picture Source :
