Supreme Court sets aside bail condition to pay maintenance to wife in alleged forced marriage case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside a bail condition directing a man to pay Rs 4,000 monthly maintenance to his wife in a case of Bihar's alleged forced marriage, saying the court can't impose irrelevant conditions in the exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC.

"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," a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti said.

The state counsel contended the 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, which was specifically recorded.

"We are of the view that the bail condition imposed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance to the informant (respondent no 2, wife) 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 bench said.

The petitioner's counsel said that though the maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month may not be a large amount, the concerned marriage has a peculiar history, as the petitioner was abducted by the family of the second respondent (wife) and a marriage like ceremony was organised.

The petitioner also said he has filed the complaint in 2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. The matrimonial suit in 2023 was also filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Purnea seeking annulment of marriage with the respondent where it was averred that on May 14, 2022 at about 8 am, 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.

His counsel contended that since it was a forced marriage, he has moved the competent court for annulment of the marriage and the proceedings are pending before Family court, Purnea.

It was also pointed out that the wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming maintenance.

The counsel submitted that the High Court while considering bail, should not have imposed a pre-condition on the appellant for paying maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month), as was recorded in the Patna High Court's order.