New Delhi, Nov. 14 -- The Supreme Court has cautioned courts against using bail proceedings to impose conditions requiring a husband to pay maintenance to his wife, underscoring that such matters must be pursued through the appropriate legal forum. Setting aside the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to four members of a family in a matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment case, a bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said courts must not turn the process of granting pre-arrest protection into a mechanism for securing maintenance."A process of bail or anticipatory bail cannot be converted into a forum for grant of maintenance," emphasised the bench in a recent order, which reinforces the distinction between conditions that may legitimately be attached to bail and the separate remedies available to a spouse seeking financial support during matrimonial litigation. The case arose from a complaint registered in Tamil Nadu under provisions of the Indian Penal Code dealing with cruelty by a husband or his relatives, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation, besides sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant had named four members of her husband's family as accused, prompting them to seek anticipatory bail before the Madras High Court's Madurai bench. While granting them protection from arrest on October 7, 2022, the high court directed the husband, who was living abroad and was not among those seeking bail, to return to India within six months to facilitate an amicable settlement. It also ordered him to pay Rs.20,000 every month as interim maintenance to the complainant until the order was modified by a competent court. When the husband neither returned to India nor paid the amount, the complainant approached the high court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the four relatives. The high court accepted the plea on November 27, 2025, cancelling their protection on the ground that the husband had failed to comply with the conditions concerning his return and payment of maintenance. The top court said the four accused could not be made answerable for the conduct of a person who was neither a party to bail proceedings nor under their control....