The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot mandate the payment of alimony as a condition for granting bail in matrimonial disputes. The apex court emphasized that such a stipulation falls outside the scope of bail conditions, asserting that bail terms should be focused on ensuring a fair and impartial trial.

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

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) pertains to the grant of pre-arrest bail. This provision has been replaced by Section 482 in the Bharatiya Nyay Suraksh Sanhita (BNSS), which came into effect on July 1, 2024.

The bench delivered its ruling on Monday, overturning a Patna trial court order, upheld by the high court in July 2023, which made it a condition for granting bail to a man in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to pay ₹4,000 in maintenance to his “wife.”

The case arises from the petitioner’s allegations that he was abducted and coerced into marriage in May 2022. Advocate Fauzia Shakil, representing the petitioner, argued that the bail condition was unjustified and referenced the Supreme Court’s 2009 judgment in the Munish Bhasin case, which had explicitly stated that courts cannot impose “irrelevant” conditions when granting bail.

The court acknowledged the petitioner’s claims of abduction and forced marriage, with an annulment petition currently pending in the Purnia district court. In response, the state of Bihar, represented by advocate Anshul Narayan, contested these claims, asserting that the petitioner had voluntarily proposed the maintenance arrangement himself.

However, the Supreme Court deemed the imposition of alimony as a bail condition legally unsustainable. It ruled that the trial court’s order to pay maintenance was outside its jurisdiction and beyond the scope of bail jurisprudence.

In setting aside the bail condition, the court clarified: “While granting bail to an accused, a court is expected to impose conditions 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.”