Supreme Court: Bail In matrimonial offences Can't Be Conditional On Payment Of Maintenance

 With the above, the counsel argues that the High Court while considering bail, should not have imposed a precondition on the appellant for paying maintenance (Rupees Four Thousand per month), as was recorded in the impugned order dated 17.07.2023. {Para 7}

9. 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.

11. Having considered the above, we are of the view that the bail condition imposed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay Rupees Four Thousand per month as maintenance to the informant (respondent no.2) was not merited. The same is accordingly set aside and quashed. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).13083/2023

 SRIKANT KUMAR @ SHRIKANT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Dated: JANUARY 06, 2025.

Leave granted.

2. Heard Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant.

3. The Office Report dated 13.12.2024 indicates that notice

was duly served on the respondent no.2 (informant/wife) but

she has failed to enter her appearance.

4. The State of Bihar is represented by Mr. Anshul Narayan,

learned counsel.

5. Notice in this case was issued on 16.10.2023, with the

following order:-

“…

The counsel would firstly submit that while

maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month may not be a large

amount, the concerned marriage has a peculiar history. It

is then submitted by Mr. Alam that in fact the petitioner

was abducted by the family of the second respondent and a

marriage like ceremony was organised.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the complaint

Case No. 1231 of 2022 before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Purnea.

The Matrimonial Suit No. 76 of 2023 was also filed

by the petitioner before the Family Court, Purnea seeking

annulment of marriage with the respondent (Archana

Kumari) where it is averred that on 14.05.2022 at about 8

a.m., the petitioner was assaulted and abducted by the

family of the girl and they forcibly got the petitioner

to join a marriage ritual, by confining him to a closed

room under threat and intimidation.

Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

The petitioner is permitted to serve Dasti notice

additionally, on the Standing Counsel for the State of

Bihar.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since

it was a forced marriage of the appellant, he has moved the

competent Court for annulment of the marriage and the

proceedings are pending before Family court, Purnea. It is

then pointed out that the respondent no.2 has filed an

application under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming

maintenance from the appellant.

7. With the above, the counsel argues that the High Court

while considering bail, should not have imposed a precondition on the appellant for paying maintenance (Rupees Four

Thousand per month), as was recorded in the impugned order

dated 17.07.2023.

8. Mr. Anshul Narayan, learned government counsel, in his

turn, submits that that the said direction for paying

maintenance in the bail order was incorporated only because

the appellant’s counsel made the offer to provide maintenance

to the informant. This was specifically recorded in the

Paragraph 4 of the Court’s order dated 17.07.2023.

9. 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.

10. On this, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned counsel has relied

upon Munish Bhasin and Others vs. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) and Another, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 45.

11. Having considered the above, we are of the view that the

bail condition imposed by the High Court directing the

appellant to pay Rupees Four Thousand per month as maintenance

to the informant (respondent no.2) was not merited. The same

is accordingly set aside and quashed. 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.

12. With above limited interference with the impugned order,

the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any,

stand closed.

.......................... J.

 [ HRISHIKESH ROY ]

.......................... J.

[ S.V.N. BHATTI ]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 06, 2025

Print Page