Supreme Court Law Insider

Aastha Thakur

Published on: October 27, 2022 at 16:34 IST

The apex court recently issues notice against a SLP that raises the issue regarding imposing a requirement of payment of maintenance while granting anticipatory bail. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar was hearing the matter.

According to Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 323, 379, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the wife in this case filed a complaint against the accused. The accused went to the Patna High Court after anticipating his arrest. He was given anticipatory bail, but it was also ordered that he pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000.

The accused then contested this decision before the Supreme Court and in his plea placed his reliance on Munish Bhasin v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) to show that such imposed condition are not maintainable.

In the said judgment, it was observed thus, “In a proceeding under Section 438 of the Code, the Court would not be justified in awarding maintenance to the wife and child…. Normally, the question of grant of maintenance should be left to be decided by the competent Court in an appropriate proceeding where the parties can adduce evidence in support of their respective case, after which liability of husband to pay maintenance could be determined and appropriate order would be passed directing the husband to pay amount of maintenance to his wife.”

While issuing notice, the bench stayed the condition of payment of maintenance, granting him anticipatory bail.

Case: Abhishek Katyayan vs State of Bihar

Related Post