Alimony can’t be a condition for bail in marital disputes: SC

New Delhi The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot impose the payment of alimony as a condition for granting bail in matrimonial disputes, in a significant ruling reinforcing the legal framework of bail jurisprudence.

Emphasising that such a stipulation lies outside the scope of bail conditions, the apex court asserted that the conditions of bail must be relevant to ensuring a free and fair trial.

“There cannot be a condition to pay alimony while granting bail. It is well settled that conditions of bail have to be relevant to the free and fair trial of the case and availability of the accused persons for investigation and trial. Imposing conditions which are irrelevant to the exercise of powers under Section 438 of the CrPC would not be warranted,” said a bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) relates to the grant of pre-arrest bail. This provision has been replaced with Section 482 in the Bharatiya Nyay Suraksh Sanhita (BNSS), effective from July 1, 2024.

Also read: Supreme Court to examine age limit in India's surrogacy laws

The bench delivered the ruling on Monday while setting aside a Patna trial court order, affirmed by the high court in July 2023, which required a man to pay maintenance of ₹4,000 to his “wife” as a condition for granting him bail in a case registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case stems from allegations by the petitioner that he was abducted and forced into marriage in May 2022. Advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing for the petitioner, argued that such a bail condition was unwarranted and relied on the Supreme Court’s 2009 judgment in the Munish Bhasin case, which had clearly laid down that courts cannot impose “irrelevant” conditions while granting bail.

The court acknowledged the petitioner’s claims that he was abducted and forcibly married, with an annulment petition pending in the Purnia district court. The state of Bihar, represented by advocate Anshul Narayan, countered the claims, stating that the petitioner had himself proposed the arrangement for maintenance.

However, the Supreme Court found the imposition of alimony as a bail condition legally untenable. It ruled that the trial court’s direction to pay maintenance lacked jurisdiction and was beyond the scope of bail jurisprudence.

Also read: Bengaluru techie suicide: Denying grandson's custody, SC says deceased's mother 'stranger to child'

Setting aside the bail condition, the court clarified: “While granting bail to an accused, a court is expected to impose conditions so as to ensure they do not flee from justice and remain available for trial. Imposing conditions irrelevant to the exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not be warranted. The condition requiring the petitioner to pay maintenance of ₹4,000 is unwarranted and is hereby set aside. The learned trial court may impose appropriate conditions as per law.”

In its order, the court leaned heavily on the principles laid down in the Munish Bhasin case. That judgment established that while courts have the discretion to impose conditions while granting bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, such conditions must align with the purpose of bail and not exceed jurisdiction.

The Munish Bhasin ruling elaborated: “Conditions to secure the presence of the accused, prevent tampering with evidence, or maintain law and order are appropriate. However, imposing conditions unrelated to bail jurisdiction, such as the payment of maintenance, is beyond the court’s powers.” The judgment also stressed that maintenance claims should be adjudicated separately under Section 125 of the CrPC, where parties can present evidence before a competent court.