Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the Patna High Court examined whether a bail condition requiring an accused husband to pay ₹5,000 every month to his wife could be sustained when the man was a poor labourer and unable to afford it.
The petitioner was accused in a complaint case filed in 2014 by his wife. She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and that her husband had remarried, leading to charges under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 494 (bigamy) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was taken into custody in January 2018.
He applied for bail before the Sessions Court in Gopalganj. On 3 April 2018, bail was granted but with strict conditions, including:
- The petitioner must pay ₹5,000 monthly to his legally wedded wife.
- If he discontinued, his bail could be cancelled.
- The in-laws should not create hurdles in reconciliation.
The petitioner later sought modification of this order, stating that he was a poor labourer and simply could not afford the amount. His application was rejected in July 2019. As a result, although bail had been granted, he remained in custody since January 2018 because he could not fulfil the condition.
Before the High Court, his counsel argued that the condition was unreasonable, harsh, and arbitrary since no inquiry into his income or financial capacity was ever conducted. He emphasized that bail conditions should not defeat the very purpose of granting bail. The petitioner also stated he was willing to honourably keep his wife and cooperate with the trial.
The Court noted that while bail conditions may include financial support to a wife in matrimonial disputes, the amount must be realistic and take into account:
- The socio-economic background of the accused.
- His actual income.
- Availability of other legal remedies for the wife under maintenance laws.
In this case, since the man had been in custody for over three years due to inability to pay, the condition was found onerous and unjust.
Accordingly, the High Court deleted the condition of paying ₹5,000 per month but kept the other bail conditions intact. It directed that the petitioner be released on bail at the earliest. Importantly, the Court clarified that the complainant (wife) was free to seek maintenance or support through other legal remedies available under law.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
For Accused in Matrimonial Disputes
This ruling highlights that bail conditions should be reasonable. Courts cannot impose harsh monetary conditions without assessing the paying capacity of the accused. Otherwise, bail becomes meaningless, and the accused continues to remain in custody.
For Aggrieved Wives
The judgment does not take away the right of a wife to seek maintenance. It clarifies that wives can always approach courts under laws like Section 125 CrPC, Domestic Violence Act, or family law provisions for maintenance and support.
For Trial Courts
The decision serves as a guideline that while granting bail in matrimonial disputes, trial courts must carefully balance the interests of the wife with the economic condition of the husband. Arbitrary amounts without inquiry may be struck down.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether bail can be conditional upon payment of a fixed sum without assessing income?
• Decision: No. Such a condition is arbitrary and harsh. It defeats the object of bail. - Whether the wife loses her right to maintenance if bail condition is struck down?
• Decision: No. The wife retains the right to claim maintenance under other legal provisions. - What relief was granted?
• Decision: The High Court quashed the condition requiring ₹5,000 monthly payment, modified the bail order, and directed the release of the petitioner.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- General principles on bail conditions and fairness; no specific Supreme Court case cited but reasoning is consistent with constitutional safeguards under Article 21.
Case Title
Binda Ram @ Binda v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18014 of 2020 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 2653/2014, Gopalganj)
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 74
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey
- For the opposite party (wife): Mrs. Madhuri Lata
Link to Judgment
NiMxODAxNCMyMDIwIzMjTg==-Sn28zIZnYiM=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
