Bail Conditions Cannot Mandate Maintenance Payment In Marital Disputes
The Supreme Court has clarified that courts cannot impose irrelevant conditions, such as maintenance payments, when granting bail. A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti ruled that bail conditions must ensure a free and fair trial and the accused’s availability for investigation and trial.
Case Background
The ruling came while overturning a Patna trial court’s order that mandated a man to pay ₹4,000 in maintenance as a bail condition in a case under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioner claimed abduction and forced marriage while pursuing a pending annulment case.
The Bihar government argued that the petitioner had proposed the maintenance arrangement. However, the Supreme Court held that such conditions lie beyond the jurisdiction of bail jurisprudence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The court emphasized that conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 in BNSS 2024) should ensure the accused does not flee justice. Imposing conditions like alimony payment is irrelevant and unwarranted.
The bench relied on the 2009 Munish Bhasin judgment, which stated that bail conditions must relate to trial purposes. Maintenance claims, it added, should be settled separately under Section 125 of the CrPC.
