The Supreme Court of India ruled that bail conditions in marital disputes should not be linked to unrelated matters, like maintenance payments. The court quashed a Patna High Court order requiring Srikant Kumar to pay Rs 4,000 monthly to his wife for bail, emphasizing that bail should ensure attendance at trial without involving separate legal issues.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has made it clear that bail in marital disputes should not be tied to unrelated conditions, such as mandatory maintenance payments. The bench, consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, set aside a controversial order by the Patna High Court that required Srikant Kumar, the appellant, to pay Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife before being granted bail.
The case arose from allegations of a forced marriage. Srikant Kumar, the appellant, claimed that he had been abducted and forced into marriage with the respondent. Following the marriage, he filed for annulment in Matrimonial Suit No. 76 of 2023 in the Family Court of Purnea, Bihar. At the same time, the respondent sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is applicable in cases of spousal support.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Asks Election Commission To Consider Adopting Technological Tools To Eliminate Duplicate Names In Voters List
However, the situation took a turn when, on July 17, 2023, the Patna High Court granted bail to Srikant Kumar, but with a condition: he was required to pay Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. Srikant Kumar challenged this condition, arguing that it was unrelated to the purpose of bail, which is to ensure the accused appears for trial.
The primary issues in this case revolved around:
- Appropriateness of Maintenance as a Bail Condition: The appellant argued that imposing maintenance payments as a condition for bail was not connected to ensuring the accused’s presence at the trial, which is the primary purpose of granting bail.
- Judicial Overreach in Bail Conditions: This raised concerns about whether such conditions infringed on the separation of issues between different legal forums, particularly since the maintenance dispute was already being addressed in family court.
- Scope of Section 438 of the CrPC: The court examined whether the maintenance condition was consistent with the statutory framework governing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Read Also: Mathura Shahi Idgah Row | Supreme Court Defers Hearing on Mosque Panel’s Plea to March
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, quashed the maintenance condition imposed by the Patna High Court. The Court emphasized that bail conditions must be relevant only to the accused’s appearance at trial and should not extend to resolving unrelated legal disputes, such as maintenance payments.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy remarked,
“Imposing conditions irrelevant to ensuring the accused’s presence at trial dilutes the legal framework governing bail and risks overstepping judicial authority.”
The Court further noted that issues like maintenance should be adjudicated separately by matrimonial courts, rather than being addressed within the context of a bail order.
The Supreme Court upheld the bail granted to Srikant Kumar but directed the trial court to impose only those conditions that were necessary to secure his presence during the trial.
Case Title – SRIKANT KUMAR @ SHRIKANT KUMAR VERSUSTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
Read the Judgement here
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
