Apex court rejected to entertain an appeal against Patna High Court order requiring the plaintiff to pay maintenance to his wife as a condition for granting the anticipatory bail:
On Friday, the supreme court rejected to entertain an appeal against a Patna High Court decision requiring the appellant to pay maintenance to his wife as a condition for securing anticipatory bail.
The bench consisting of Justice NV Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose observed that having carefully perused the material placed on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The plaintiff in this case had sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While granting the same, the Patna High Court had imposed a condition that he would have to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his wife. When this order was sought to be modified, the High Court rejected the plea for modification prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court. In his SLP, the appellant raised a number of questions of law such as whether the imposition of such a condition is within the powers and jurisdiction of the Court under Section 438.
The plaintiff says that an order for paying maintenance in a case concerning anticipatory bail is “onerous, unwarranted and beyond the jurisdiction.The petition also drew support from the Apex Court’s judgments which have held against the imposition of “freakish conditions” by the High Courts and Session Courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Section 438. The petition says while imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the Court under section 438 of the Code, the Court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of the grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. Moreover, it was also submitted that the arguing counsel before the High Court made an erroneous oral submission about the willingness of the plaintiff to pay maintenance and that he had no instructions to submit the same. Since the plaintiff was not present before the Court, the submission in favor of paying maintenance could not be verified from him, the plaintiff claimed.
Further that no application for maintenance had been filed by the plaintiff’s wife since 2018, the petition underlines. In light of this, it was argued that a submission seeking maintenance should not be allowed to be made by the wife during proceedings for anticipatory bail.