Payment Of Maintenance Not A Precondition For Bail In Marital Disputes: SC
In a significant ruling on bail conditions in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court recently decided the case of Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr (Criminal Appeal from SLP (Crl.) No.13083/2023). The verdict, delivered on January 6, 2025, by a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, struck down a condition that required the appellant-husband to provide maintenance to his estranged wife as a prerequisite for securing anticipatory bail. It has been observed by the court 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 appellant-husband, fearing imminent arrest, had sought anticipatory bail in a case registered against him under Sections 498A, 504, 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Notably, while granting him anticipatory bail, the Patna High Court, taking into account his willingness to provide financial support to his estranged wife, imposed a condition requiring him to deposit ₹4,000 per month into her account. Additionally, the court specified that if he failed to make payments for two consecutive months, the lower court would have the authority to revoke his bail bond.
Dissatisfied with the conditions attached to his anticipatory bail by the Patna High Court, the appellant decided to approach the Supreme Court for relief. Representing him, Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil contended that he had been coerced into marrying the complainant-wife. She also informed the court that he had initiated legal proceedings before the appropriate forum to annul the marriage, which were still underway.
SUPREME COURT'S FINDINGS AND RULING
The Supreme Court emphasized that bail conditions should serve the purpose of ensuring the accused’s presence during trial and preventing any attempt to evade justice. It clarified that imposing conditions unrelated to these objectives, such as mandating maintenance payments, is unjustified under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Reinforcing this principle, the Court referred to its previous ruling in Munish Bhasin & Others vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009), which asserted that bail conditions should neither be punitive nor irrelevant to the judicial process. Consequently, the Bench set aside the Patna High Court’s directive requiring the appellant to pay maintenance, ruling that such a condition was unwarranted. However, the appellant was still required to adhere to appropriate bail conditions to ensure his presence at trial.
The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clear guidelines on the scope of bail conditions, emphasizing that they should strictly relate to the judicial process and not extend to unrelated matters like maintenance disputes. It also reinforces the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, highlighting that maintenance claims fall within the realm of civil law, governed by provisions such as Section 125 of the CrPC, and should not be intertwined with bail conditions. Furthermore, the judgment stresses the importance of judicial caution and prudence in handling matrimonial disputes, ensuring that legal remedies remain consistent with statutory provisions and do not overstep their intended purpose.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Hon’ble Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, has unequivocally established that bail in matrimonial disputes cannot be contingent upon the payment of maintenance. It is imperative that both High Courts and District Courts take due note of this clear and well-reasoned ruling and ensure its proper application in relevant cases. The judgment leaves no room for doubt or debate, reinforcing a crucial legal principle with clarity and conviction.
Author: Robin Singh, Associate