Mutual consent divorce case lawyer in Delhi India

SLP (Crl.) No. 4862 OF 2025

ANIL KUMAR APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENTS

The Supreme Court recently set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision to impose a pre-arrest bail condition that the accused shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife. The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih called out the imposition of such a condition not traceable to Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. “The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent no.2 with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation.”, the court said.

In such state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition which is not traceable to Section 438(2), Cr. PC.”, the court added. The Appellant-husband was booked under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

An anticipatory bail application was filed before the Jharkhand High Court, which agreed to grant pre-arrest bail subject to the condition that the Appellant-husband shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honor. Aggrieved by the imposition of such a condition, which could have given rise to further litigation, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court. Noting that the High Court committed an error, the Court observed:

an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that such condition has not been complied with, if filed later, is bound to meet opposition from the appellant and could place the High Court in further difficulty. The High Court could find itself disabled to decide a disputed question of fact, in an application for pre-arrest bail.” Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail case was restored to the High Court's case file. 

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Best Divorce lawyer

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in East delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in new delhi

Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi

Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court

Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer

Best mutual divorce lawyer

Maintenance case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer

Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi India

Best criminal case lawyer

Transfer petition case lawyer

NRI mutual consent divorce lawyer

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509