It is definitely most refreshing, most rejuvenating and so also most reassuring to note that while taking the right step in the right direction at the right time, the Supreme Court which is the top court of our nation while taking the most decisive step in a case that owed its roots to a matrimonial dispute in a most learned, laudable, logical, landmark and latest judgment titled Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar vs The State of Bihar & Anr in Criminal Appeal that arose out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).13083/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-07-2023 in CRLM No. 52739/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna] and cited in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 67 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that was pronounced finally on January 6, 2025 after perusing the facts of the case and the material on record 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." We thus see that the Apex Court while taking the most pragmatic and progressive stand set aside a bail condition making the husband's anticipatory bail subject to payment of maintenance to the wife. Very rightly so!
To recapitulate, it may be recalled that the appellant-husband while very strongly apprehending his arrest in a case that were registered for the offences against him under Sections 498A, 504, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and so also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is quite befuddling to note that while granting anticipatory bail, the Patna High Court in light of the appellant's willingness to pay maintenance to the complainant-wife imposed a condition that Rs 4000/- (per month) shall have to be deposited by him in the account of his wife. It was also stipulated that in the event of appellant's failure to pay maintenance for 2 consecutive months, lower court was given liberty to cancel his bail bond.
Truth be told, what also needs to be divulged here is that while feeling aggrieved against the condition stipulated by the Patna High Court while granting anticipatory bail to him, the appellant deemed it absolutely fit to approach the Supreme Court for relief. It also must be revealed here that the Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil while appearing for the appellant-husband had submitted that the appellant was forced to marry the complainant-wife. She further also laid bare in this context that the appellant had moved the competent Court for annulment of marriage of which proceedings are pending.
By the way, we need to note here that although the complainant-wife did not enter appearance, the State Counsel of Bihar objected to the appellant's submission and made it known to the Court that the impugned bail condition was imposed following the appellant's own offer to make said payment. It is definitely entirely in the fitness of things that after going through the records, the Apex Court very rightly opined that the bail condition imposed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs 4000 to the wife was not merited. While adding a rider, it was very rightly noted by the top court holding that, "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."
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Hrishikesh Roy and so also Hon'ble Mr Justice S.V.N. Bhatti sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "Leave granted."
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 of this robust judgment stating that, "Heard Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant."
Do note, the Bench notes in para 3 of this pertinent judgment that, "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."
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 4 of this remarkable judgment that, "The State of Bihar is represented by Mr. Anshul Narayan, learned counsel."
To put things in perspective, it would be instructive to note that the Bench then notes and envisages in para 5 of this extremely commendable judgment that, "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.""
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 6 of this rational judgment that, "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."
As it turned out, the Bench then further enunciates in para 7 stating that, "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."
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 8 of this persuasive judgment that, "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."
Most significantly, most remarkably and most brilliantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 9 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely in no uncertain terms 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."
It is worth noting that the Bench in this context then notes and points out in para 10 of this courageous judgment that, "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."
As a corollary, we need to note that the Bench then deemed it perfectly fit to hold and stipulate in para 11 of this cogent judgment mandating that, "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."
Finally, we see that the Bench then draws the curtains of this noteworthy judgment holding succinctly that, "With above limited interference with the impugned order, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed."
All said and done, the bottom-line of the aforesaid discussion is that the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Hrishikesh Roy and so also Hon'ble Mr Justice S.V.N. Bhatti have made it indubitably clear that bail in marital disputes can't be conditional on payment of maintenance. There can be thus just no gainsaying that all the High Courts and so also the District Courts must without fail pay definitely heed to what the top court has held so very clearly, commendably, cogently and convincingly in this leading case! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
