In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that bail in marital disputes cannot be contingent upon conditions like mandatory maintenance payments. A bench consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti overturned a Patna High Court order requiring the appellant, Srikant Kumar, to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to secure bail.
Case Background
The case arose from allegations of a forced marriage, with the appellant, Srikant Kumar, claiming 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. Simultaneously, the respondent filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The conflict intensified 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 contested this condition, asserting that it went beyond the legal framework for granting bail.
Key Legal Issues
- Legitimacy of Maintenance as a Bail Condition
The appellant argued that tying a maintenance obligation to a bail order was inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of bail, which is to secure the accused’s presence during the trial. - Judicial Overreach in Bail Conditions
The case raised concerns about whether imposing such conditions amounted to judicial overreach, especially since the matter of maintenance was already being addressed in separate legal proceedings. - Relevance of Section 438 of the CrPC
The court examined whether attaching a maintenance condition was in line with the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
In striking down the maintenance condition, the Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of bail conditions. It clarified that bail conditions should focus solely on ensuring the accused’s appearance during the trial and should not address 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 emphasized that bail conditions should not interfere with issues meant to be resolved in other legal forums, such as matrimonial courts. While upholding the bail granted to Mr. Kumar, the court directed the trial court to impose only those conditions necessary to ensure his presence during the 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 failed to appear despite being properly served with notice.
