Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma have observed that while granting anticipatory bail to the accused husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a condition that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, cannot be imposed.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Kunal Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand.

What is the Background of Kunal Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• The accused husband (appellant) had applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Bench. The court had granted bail to the husband and imposed a peculiar condition that the husband was required to take his wife to his home and maintain her with dignity and honor.
• The appellant again approached the High Court, praying for modification of the order.
• In a petition filed for modification of order, the husband contended that he had hired a house and was ready to maintain his wife.
• The High Court dismissed his plea while observing that the appellant is resolute in not resuming his life with his wife at his own house.
• While setting aside the impugned order, the court granted bail to the accused.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Neither condition like the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, should have been imposed by the High Court while granting an anticipatory bail, nor such could be a ground for rejection of the petition filed by the appellant.

What is the Meaning of ‘Conjugal Rights’?

• The term ‘Conjugal Rights’ could be placed against any of the spouses guilty of staying away from the other party without a proper reason. If the suit succeeds, then the couple would be needed to stay together.
• The decree of restitution of conjugal rights cannot be actioned by forcefully making the party who has gone away from society from the other party to live with the one who sets petition for restitution.