spinner

Section 498A: The Supreme Court has nullified the bail condition that mandated the husband to provide an interim compensation of ₹9 lakh.

Last Updated: 2023-10-04 02:09:08
Section 498A: The Supreme Court has nullified the bail condition that mandated the husband to provide an interim compensation of ₹9 lakh.

The recent decision by the Supreme Court to set aside an anticipatory bail condition imposed by the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Rohit Jaiswal vs State of Jharkhand and anr has been noted.

The High Court had required the appellant, who had been booked for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to pay ₹9 lakh to his estranged wife as ad-interim compensation. However, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti found that the High Court was not justified in imposing such a condition on the appellant.

The bench stated that the condition was hereby deleted, but clarified that it had not interfered with the grant of anticipatory bail and other conditions as imposed. The Supreme Court made these observations and issued its order on September 27 while disposing of appeals filed by the husband against a Jharkhand High Court order from April last year.

The Supreme Court also noted that the husband had agreed to enhance the monthly maintenance payable to the wife from ₹4,000 to ₹10,000 per month after a suggestion was made in this regard by the Court.

The maintenance amount is being increased to ₹10,000 per month in light of the statement made by the learned counsel representing the appellant. The appellant, Rohit Jaiswal, will continue to make payments as stated. If there is a failure to do so, respondent no.2/informant will have the right to take legal action for enforcement before the trial court, as directed by the Court.

The Court clarified that the maintenance amount determined based on the appellant's statement can be modified, increased, or decreased by the trial court or the appellate court.

The appellant was represented by advocates Shreeyash U Lalit, Mahesh Kumar, Nikhilesh Kumar, Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Devika Khanna, and VD Khanna from VMZ Chambers.

Advocates Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh, Anupama Sharma, Amar Jyoti Sharma, and Vedika Dalmia represented the Jharkhand government.

Advocates MM Singh, Naveen Thakur, and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal appeared on behalf of the informant-wife.

Click Here to: Download/View Related File

TAGS: Supreme Court of India Jharkhand High Court Compensation Maintenance Section 498A IPC The Bench Supreme Court


Latest Posts

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoners' Right to Legal Aid in Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoner...

Supreme Court’s Verdict in Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court’s Verdict in L...

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Structure for Artificers in Indian Navy

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Stru...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank in Locker Operation Dispute

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Agai...

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Insolvency Proceedings: Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank

Supreme Court Ruling on Corpor...

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode's Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashod...

Supreme Court Resolves Lease Dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sidhartha Tiles

Supreme Court Resolves Lease D...

Supreme Court Denies Interest on Delayed Pension for

Supreme Court Denies Interest ...